From VM Thu Jan 6 10:09:59 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["464" "Thursday" "6" "January" "2000" "12:09:00" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "12" "starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 464 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA26486 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:09:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA26481 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:09:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id z.16.164e3cfb (4415) for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:09:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <16.164e3cfb.25a6262c@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:09:00 EST Hey folks. Ran across a comment about suspended animation/hibernation. Seems they've done studies on animals using some of the drugs VooDoo folks usedto use to make Zombies. They show promis in use for hibernation. The same effect that slows resperation and pulse enough so you look dead and don't sofocate until they dig you up, also works for hybernation for something like space travel. Weird. No real details on what they were talking about. Kelly From VM Thu Jan 6 11:15:47 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1361" "Thursday" "6" "January" "2000" "11:10:15" "-0800" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "33" "Re: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1361 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00296 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:10:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from jason03.u.washington.edu (root@jason03.u.washington.edu [140.142.77.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA00290 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:10:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from dante38.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante38.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.198]) by jason03.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id LAA13720; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:10:15 -0800 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante38.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id LAA34488; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:10:15 -0800 In-Reply-To: <16.164e3cfb.25a6262c@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" From: "N. Lindberg" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:10:15 -0800 (PST) Hi all, I saw a tv show on that a while back. It focused mainly on Haitian zombei, but also mentioned the unfortunate effects of eating improperly prepared fugu. Starflight was mentioned briefly at the end of the program (complete w/ cheezy graphics) The common thread was the nerve poison Teterodoxin, which is used today in very small amounts to control some kinds of tics. Unfortunately, taking the drug in large amounts is bad for you. The witch doctor interviewed for the program reported a 25% survival rate for the people he had zombified. Japanese fugu victims fare only slightly better, even with modern medical care. Also, the survivors usually have severe brain damage. On the other hand, maybe these problems could be gotten around, some rodents do it without any apparent trouble at all. Nels Lindberg On Thu, 6 Jan 2000 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > Hey folks. Ran across a comment about suspended animation/hibernation. > Seems they've done studies on animals using some of the drugs VooDoo folks > usedto use to make Zombies. They show promis in use for hibernation. The > same effect that slows resperation and pulse enough so you look dead and > don't sofocate until they dig you up, also works for hybernation for > something like space travel. > > Weird. > > No real details on what they were talking about. > > Kelly > From VM Thu Jan 6 13:10:33 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1551" "Thursday" "6" "January" "2000" "16:08:19" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "47" "Re: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1551 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA10504 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:08:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA10492 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:08:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id z.81.8110fec4 (3845) for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 16:08:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <81.8110fec4.25a65e43@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 16:08:19 EST Arg, 25% survival rates could be an issue with potential crewman. ;) Kelly In a message dated 1/6/00 1:10:27 PM, nlindber@u.washington.edu writes: >Hi all, > I saw a tv show on that a while back. It focused mainly on >Haitian zombei, but also mentioned the unfortunate effects of eating >improperly prepared fugu. Starflight was mentioned briefly at the end >of >the program (complete w/ cheezy graphics) The common thread was the nerve >poison Teterodoxin, which is used today in very small amounts to control >some kinds of tics. Unfortunately, taking the drug in large amounts is >bad for you. The witch doctor interviewed for the program reported a 25% >survival rate for the people he had zombified. Japanese fugu victims fare >only slightly better, even with modern medical care. Also, the survivors >usually have severe brain damage. On the other hand, maybe these problems >could be gotten around, some rodents do it without any apparent trouble >at >all. >Nels Lindberg > > > >On Thu, 6 Jan 2000 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> Hey folks. Ran across a comment about suspended animation/hibernation. > >> Seems they've done studies on animals using some of the drugs VooDoo >folks >> usedto use to make Zombies. They show promis in use for hibernation. > The >> same effect that slows resperation and pulse enough so you look dead >and >> don't sofocate until they dig you up, also works for hybernation for > >> something like space travel. >> >> Weird. >> >> No real details on what they were talking about. >> >> Kelly From VM Thu Jan 6 15:18:01 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2198" "Thursday" "6" "January" "2000" "17:15:13" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "81" "RE: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2198 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA21975 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:16:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA21955 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:16:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p474.gnt.com [204.49.91.90]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA06847; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 17:16:14 -0600 Message-ID: <000d01bf589b$f82fa370$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <81.8110fec4.25a65e43@aol.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: Subject: RE: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 17:15:13 -0600 I can't resist...too many science fiction books! You have been found guilty of [insert crime], the court sentences you to life without parole (or death), however you may elect to become a crewmember on ... Sound familiar? Lee Parker > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of > KellySt@aol.com > Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 3:08 PM > Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended animation. > > > Arg, 25% survival rates could be an issue with potential crewman. > > ;) > > Kelly > > > In a message dated 1/6/00 1:10:27 PM, > nlindber@u.washington.edu writes: > > >Hi all, > > I saw a tv show on that a while back. It focused mainly on > >Haitian zombei, but also mentioned the unfortunate effects of eating > >improperly prepared fugu. Starflight was mentioned briefly > at the end > >of > >the program (complete w/ cheezy graphics) The common thread > was the nerve > >poison Teterodoxin, which is used today in very small > amounts to control > >some kinds of tics. Unfortunately, taking the drug in large > amounts is > >bad for you. The witch doctor interviewed for the program > reported a 25% > >survival rate for the people he had zombified. Japanese > fugu victims fare > >only slightly better, even with modern medical care. Also, > the survivors > >usually have severe brain damage. On the other hand, maybe > these problems > >could be gotten around, some rodents do it without any > apparent trouble > >at > >all. > >Nels Lindberg > > > > > > > >On Thu, 6 Jan 2000 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > > >> Hey folks. Ran across a comment about suspended > animation/hibernation. > > > >> Seems they've done studies on animals using some of the > drugs VooDoo > >folks > >> usedto use to make Zombies. They show promis in use for > hibernation. > > The > >> same effect that slows resperation and pulse enough so you > look dead > >and > >> don't sofocate until they dig you up, also works for > hybernation for > > > >> something like space travel. > >> > >> Weird. > >> > >> No real details on what they were talking about. > >> > >> Kelly From VM Thu Jan 6 16:19:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1003" "Friday" "7" "January" "2000" "00:20:50" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "27" "Re: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1003 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA26645 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 16:16:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA26631 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 16:16:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin51.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.51]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA06262 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 17:16:44 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38753162.5613EF19@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000d01bf589b$f82fa370$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 00:20:50 +0000 "L. Parker" wrote: > > I can't resist...too many science fiction books! > > You have been found guilty of [BAD SI-FI WRITING], the court sentences you to > life without parole (or death), however you may elect to become a crewmember > on ... > The Zombie type dugs are only 1/2 the problem, the aging of the cells themselves have to slow down. You don't want to go to sleep age 20 and wake up age 80. The fact that you have no weight might permit unusal methods of slowing down the cells, as drugs would diffuse better. Some cold water fish have a natural anti-frezze so it you develop that for humans and keep the body at say 10 F, you may slow down the chemical aging of the cells. - "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Where a calculator like the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1 1/2 tons." Popular Mechanics, March 1949 From VM Fri Jan 7 10:13:13 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3954" "Thursday" "6" "January" "2000" "20:42:53" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "79" "Re: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3954 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07524 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 17:43:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA07518 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 17:43:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id z.1f.1f108028 (3969) for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 20:42:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1f.1f108028.25a69e9d@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 20 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 20:42:53 EST In a message dated 1/6/00 4:54:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, STAR1SHIP writes: << In a message dated 1/6/00 9:11:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, KellySt@aol.com writes: << Hey folks. Ran across a comment about suspended animation/hibernation. Seems they've done studies on animals using some of the drugs VooDoo folks usedto use to make Zombies. They show promis in use for hibernation. The same effect that slows resperation and pulse enough so you look dead and don't sofocate until they dig you up, also works for hybernation for something like space travel. >> Seems like there would be to much to do aboard a space craft to even want hibernation. Picking landing site, training colonist with colony skills, scanning scenery, Solving problems. Any star system colonization would require independence from earth and also require that reproductive quality of life in an environment of possible enclosed dimensions protected from the elements so that colony would succeed and grow even if landfall was in an uninhabitable place. A long time span journey solution has already been found by Einstein who showed that should your craft near speed of light relative to earth, time became dilated. At 50% dilation a journey a distance of 4 light years takes two years ship time giving a velocity of twice light speed. Closer to light speed, crossing galaxies and even the distance between them can be accomplished in days of ship time. Better monies be spent on engines capable of approaching light speed, -- like the one in the link below. Independence from earth means that the eons passed on earth during the few days are not important so distance traveled divided by observer time giving observed velocity with a c limit is meaningless. Unless of course your motivation for the journey is the parade of family and friends on return to earth. Since velocity can exceed light speed in the part of the example trip given there clearly exists in the universe a counter example proving a light speed limit for rockets as nonscientific nonsense and defines the limit is on what can be observed and not what may be doable. The is no known reason to shutoff the engines accelerating at one g for 355 days just because the rocket becomes unobservable. The rocket becomes unobservable when velocity exceeds light speed because observer light traveling towards earth relative to the rocket is in fact traveling away from the earth with a negative velocity so does not hit retina to get observed. No paradox there but basic physical science calculating and measuring the velocity of an object thrown from a car towards the starting point when the velocity of the car wrt (with respect to) staring point is faster than the velocity wrt car of the object thrown back to starting point. The object simply does not reach the starting point. (neglect air resistance). I propose such unobservable velocities obtained may allow the travelers to return to earth and be closer to the age of the earth twin. Do not look for (as they do not yet exist as a complete relativity theory) the equations determining time variance above light speed and calculating the amount but do feel free to derive them special relativity(SR) and general relativity(GR). Please, do not confuse my rocket engine with those imaginary thought experiment rockets so often found in SR and GR basic training. It has been pointed out to me that such a velocity concept and understanding of Einstein's theory was published by the SCI-faction author Poul Anderson in a book entitled Tau Ceti. My independent contribution to above remains my engine. Kelly- Please forward to starship- design mailing list as I forgot how and my mail responder just listed your address in send to: block. Feel free to add any personal discalimers you like :=) Disregard last request as figured it out. Regards, Tom >> From VM Fri Jan 7 10:13:13 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["955" "Friday" "7" "January" "2000" "16:07:03" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "27" "Re: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 955 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA27030 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 07:08:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA26939 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 07:06:57 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA08506 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:07:03 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200001071507.QAA08506@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:07:03 +0100 (MET) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 7 01:18:59 2000 > Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 00:20:50 +0000 > > "L. Parker" wrote: > > > > I can't resist...too many science fiction books! > > > > You have been found guilty of [BAD SI-FI WRITING], the court sentences you to > > life without parole (or death), however you may elect to become a crewmember > > on ... > > > The Zombie type dugs are only 1/2 the problem, the aging of the cells > themselves have to slow down. You don't want to go to sleep age 20 > and wake up age 80. > Exactly. > The fact that you have no weight might permit unusal methods > of slowing down the cells, as drugs would diffuse better. > Some cold water fish have a natural anti-frezze so it you develop that > for humans and keep the body at say 10 F, you may slow down > the chemical aging of the cells. > Some frogs do exactly that. They freeze in the ice, and thaw back without damage. -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Fri Jan 7 13:29:22 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3893" "Friday" "7" "January" "2000" "16:24:13" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "81" "Re: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3893 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA16469 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:24:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA16441 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:24:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id z.18.182cc90b (3843); Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:24:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <18.182cc90b.25a7b37d@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:24:13 EST In a message dated 1/6/00 6:54:59 PM, STAR1SHIP writes: >In a message dated 1/6/00 9:11:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, KellySt@aol.com >writes: > ><< Hey folks. Ran across a comment about suspended animation/hibernation. > > Seems they've done studies on animals using some of the drugs VooDoo folks > > usedto use to make Zombies. They show promis in use for hibernation. > The > same effect that slows resperation and pulse enough so you look dead and > > don't sofocate until they dig you up, also works for hybernation for > something like space travel. > >> > >Seems like there would be to much to do aboard a space craft to even want >hibernation. Picking landing site, training colonist with colony skills, >scanning scenery, Solving problems. Any star system colonization would >require independence from earth and also require that reproductive quality >of life in an environment of possible enclosed dimensions protected from >the elements so that colony would succeed and grow and grow even if landfall >was in an uninhabitable place. > > >A long time span journey solution has already been found by Einstein who >showed that should your craft near speed of light relative to earth, time >became dilated. At 50% dilation a journey a distance of 4 light years takes >two years ship time giving a velocity of twice light speed. Closer to light >speed, crossing galaxies and even the distance between them can be accomplished >in days of ship time. Better money be spent on engines capable of approaching >light speed, -- like the one in the link below. Independence from earth >means that the eons passed on earth during the few days are not important >so distance traveled divided by observer time giving observed velocity >with a c limit is meaningless. Unless of course your motivation for the >journey is the parade of family and friends on return to earth. > >Since velocity can exceed light speed in the part of the example trip given >there clearly exists in the universe a counter example proving a light >speed limit for rockets as nonscientific nonsense and defines the limit >is on what can be observed and not what may be doable. The is no known >reason to shut the engines accelerating at one g for 355 days off just >because the rocket becomes unobservable. > >The rocket becomes unobservable when velocity exceeds light speed because >observer light traveling towards earth relative to the rocket is in fact >traveling away from the earth with a negative velocity so does not hit >retina to get observed. > >No paradox there but basic physical science calculating and measuring the >velocity of an object thrown from a car towards the starting point when >the velocity of the car wrt (with respect to) staring point is faster than >the velocity wrt car of the object thrown back to starting point. The object >simply does not reach the starting point. (neglect air resistance). > >I propose such unobservable velocities obtained may allow the travelers >to return to earth and be closer to the age of the earth twin. Do not look >for (as they do not yet exist as a complete relativity theory) the equations >determining time variance above light speed and calculating the amount >but do feel free to derive them special relativity(SR) and general relativity(GR). > >Please, do not confuse my rocket engine with those imaginary thought experiment >rockets so often found in SR and GR basic training. > >It has been pointed out to me that such a velocity concept and understanding >of Einstein's theory was published by the SCI-faction author Poul Anderson >in a book entitled Tau Ceti. > >My independent contribution to above remains my engine. Kelly- Please forward >to starship- design mailing list as I forgot how and my mail responder >just listed your address in send to: block. Feel free to add any personal >discalimers you like :=) > >Regards, >Tom From VM Fri Jan 7 13:29:22 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["623" "Friday" "7" "January" "2000" "16:24:08" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "17" "Re: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 623 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA16476 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:24:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA16465 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:24:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id d.4.44f7c54 (3843); Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:24:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4.44f7c54.25a7b378@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: nlindber@u.washington.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:24:08 EST Actually I had an image of a crew of zoned out zombis trying to operate a big starship. Kelly In a message dated 1/6/00 5:32:04 PM, nlindber@u.washington.edu writes: >Bear in mind that this is after being treated /as dead/ by haitian >peasents. I think O2 deprivation is a major issue. Also, does anyone >else get this image of spacesuited astronauts being worked over by some >wild-eyed, half-naked guy dancing around a bonfire. Also, in reply to >Kelly's post (which came in as I was writing) we dont want a lot of >anti-social wankers as crew on anything as expensive as a starship. >Nels "Mojo Hand" Lindberg From VM Fri Jan 7 13:29:22 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["648" "Friday" "7" "January" "2000" "16:24:06" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "30" "Re: RE: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 648 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA16714 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:25:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA16694 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:25:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 4.49.493f25e3 (3843); Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:24:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <49.493f25e3.25a7b376@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:24:06 EST With that 25% loss rate prison would seem the best option. ;) Kelly In a message dated 1/6/00 5:16:31 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >I can't resist...too many science fiction books! > >You have been found guilty of [insert crime], the court sentences you to >life without parole (or death), however you may elect to become a crewmember >on ... > >Sound familiar? > >Lee Parker > >> KellySt@aol.com >> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 3:08 PM >> Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu >> Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended animation. >> >> >> Arg, 25% survival rates could be an issue with potential crewman. >> >> ;) >> >> Kelly From VM Fri Jan 7 13:29:22 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["996" "Friday" "7" "January" "2000" "16:24:10" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "29" "Re: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 996 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA16515 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:25:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA16507 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:25:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id z.aa.aa17b643 (3843); Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:24:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:24:10 EST In a message dated 1/6/00 6:17:23 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >"L. Parker" wrote: >> >> I can't resist...too many science fiction books! >> >> You have been found guilty of [BAD SI-FI WRITING], the court sentences >you to >> life without parole (or death), however you may elect to become a crewmember >> on ... >> > >The Zombie type dugs are only 1/2 the problem, the aging of the cells themselves >have to slow down. You don't want to go to sleep age 20 and wake up age >80. > >The fact that you have no weight might permit unusal methods of slowing >down the cells, as drugs would diffuse better. Some cold water fish >have a natural anti-frezze so it you develop that for humans and keep >the body at say 10 F, you may slow down the chemical aging of the cells. You'ld have to keep the flights shorter then that or the ship would burn out. But yes unless you can slow down aging (and shield against radiatin damage) the crews lifespan becomes a limiting factor. Kelly From VM Fri Jan 7 13:30:10 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4008" "Friday" "7" "January" "2000" "16:24:15" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "90" "Re: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4008 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA16466 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:24:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA16446 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:24:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id z.8c.8c29ae90 (3843); Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:24:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8c.8c29ae90.25a7b37f@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:24:15 EST In a message dated 1/6/00 6:54:59 PM, STAR1SHIP writes: >In a message dated 1/6/00 9:11:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, KellySt@aol.com >writes: > ><< Hey folks. Ran across a comment about suspended animation/hibernation. > Seems they've done studies on animals using some of the drugs VooDoo folks > usedto use to make Zombies. They show promis in use for hibernation. > The same effect that slows resperation and pulse enough so you look dead and > don't sofocate until they dig you up, also works for hybernation for > something like space travel. > >> > >Seems like there would be to much to do aboard a space craft to even want >hibernation. Picking landing site, training colonist with colony skills, >scanning scenery, Solving problems. Any star system colonization would >require independence from earth and also require that reproductive quality >of life in an environment of possible enclosed dimensions protected from >the elements so that colony would succeed and grow and grow even if landfall >was in an uninhabitable place. True, however with trip times to even the closest star system of over a decade at best speed we can manage, storing the crew for the flight could be a big advantage. Colonization of planets seems very unlikly. Even colonization of a star system is unlikely without a huge population to support all the differnt speciallties needed to keep the infastructure of a civilization runing. With trip time so long resuply will be chancy. >A long time span journey solution has already been found by Einstein who >showed that should your craft near speed of light relative to earth, time >became dilated. At 50% dilation a journey a distance of 4 light years takes >two years ship time giving a velocity of twice light speed. Closer to light >speed, crossing galaxies and even the distance between them can be accomplished >in days of ship time. Better money be spent on engines capable of approaching >light speed, -- like the one in the link below. Unfortunatly near light speed engines are a long way off. Bu then so much of our basic science could change, its hard to guess at what we'ld be doing. >Independence from earth >means that the eons passed on earth during the few days are not important >so distance traveled divided by observer time giving observed velocity >with a c limit is meaningless. Unless of course your motivation for the >journey is the parade of family and friends on return to earth. Earth is going to be funding these flights. If you don't return with results withing a couple decades it would be prudent of them to hold off the launch a few decades. >Since velocity can exceed light speed in the part of the example trip given >there clearly exists in the universe a counter example proving a light >speed limit for rockets as nonscientific nonsense and defines the limit >is on what can be observed and not what may be doable. The is no known >reason to shut the engines accelerating at one g for 355 days off just >because the rocket becomes unobservable. > >The rocket becomes unobservable when velocity exceeds light speed because >observer light traveling towards earth relative to the rocket is in fact >traveling away from the earth with a negative velocity so does not hit >retina to get observed. No, rockets can't boost past or to light speed. Virtual mass makes the ships seem effectivly infinate in weight. Also the power needed to get even near half light speed exceeds what we can do with known systems. So we need to wait until we get better ideas. >No paradox there but basic physical science calculating and measuring the >velocity of an object thrown from a car towards the starting point when >the velocity of the car wrt (with respect to) staring point is faster than >the velocity wrt car of the object thrown back to starting point. The object >simply does not reach the starting point. (neglect air resistance). Relatavistic speeds don't work that way. >Regards, >Tom Kelly Kelly From VM Fri Jan 7 13:35:51 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1340" "Friday" "7" "January" "2000" "16:24:18" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "46" "Re: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1340 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA16865 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:25:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.72]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA16850 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:25:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id f.60.604f6f06 (3843); Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:24:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <60.604f6f06.25a7b382@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:24:18 EST In a message dated 1/7/00 9:09:03 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: >> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 7 01:18:59 2000 >> Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 00:20:50 +0000 >> >> "L. Parker" wrote: >> > >> > I can't resist...too many science fiction books! >> > >> > You have been found guilty of [BAD SI-FI WRITING], the court sentences >you to >> > life without parole (or death), however you may elect to become a crewmember >> > on ... >> > >> The Zombie type dugs are only 1/2 the problem, the aging of the cells > >> themselves have to slow down. You don't want to go to sleep age 20 >> and wake up age 80. >> >Exactly. > >> The fact that you have no weight might permit unusal methods >> of slowing down the cells, as drugs would diffuse better. >> Some cold water fish have a natural anti-frezze so it you develop that > >> for humans and keep the body at say 10 F, you may slow down >> the chemical aging of the cells. >> >Some frogs do exactly that. They freeze in the ice, >and thaw back without damage. Pretty rare in mammals thou. best I've heard was ground squirls that could survive their body droping to below room temp. On the other hand work on limiting or stoping aging has been making some pretty good progress. Still can't make the trips real long though. > >-- Zenon Kulpa Kelly From VM Fri Jan 7 15:20:45 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3947" "Friday" "7" "January" "2000" "16:52:11" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "106" "RE: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3947 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA13351 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:15:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA13345 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:15:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p469.gnt.com [204.49.91.85]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA25028; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:15:11 -0600 Message-ID: <002401bf5965$0441bfd0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <8c.8c29ae90.25a7b37f@aol.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , , Subject: RE: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:52:11 -0600 Perhaps a little meat in the discussion...old news: Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 11:54:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Skrecky Subject: Suspended animation and interstellar space travel within grasp Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,sci.cryonics From: jolaf@hotmail.com (jolaf) Also See http://www.biotimeinc.com http://www.biotimeinc.com/Hextend.htm >From the Sunday London Times: Frozen baboons returned to life by Lois Rogers Medical Correspondent SCIENTISTS have unlocked the secret of suspended animation by successfully reviving baboons hours after their bodies were packed into crates of ice. The breakthrough, which holds huge implications for the battle against disease and ageing, will allow humans to preserve their ice-cold bodies in suspended animation and wake up years later in the same physical condition. It has aroused the interest of space scientists investigating the possibility of interstellar travel, allowing human exploration of galaxies many light years away. Military clinicians are also attracted by the prospect of allowing critically injured troops to be near-frozen on the battlefield and preserved for later treatment. The key to the technology is Hextend, a revolutionary plasma replacement fluid which is poured into the body through a vein in the upper thigh as blood is drained and the anaesthetized body is cooled to 1C. As the clear fluid permeates the tissues, it prevents the deterioration caused by extreme lowering of body temperature. The results from the baboon studies, carried out at Biotime, a California research company, were announced at the annual meeting of the American Association of Anti-Ageing Medicine. Hal Sternberg, Biotime's head of research, said work on the mechanisms of animal hibernation had provided much of the basic information on suspended animation. One type of North American frog can partially freeze its body while it shuts down during the winter months. Hamsters have been kept alive at 1-2C with no heartbeat in Biotime laboratories for up to seven hours before being successfully rewarmed. The long-term objective is to add freeze-protectant chemicals to the Hextend solution so human bodies can be stored at -196C, the temperature of liquid nitrogen. The principal barrier, however, is popular opinion. "It is like the public attitude to early organ transplants," said Sternberg. "Although everyone will love us when we announce we have reversibly frozen a human being, at the moment this area is not considered socially acceptable. "There is a limit to how far people think you should go to save a life: but we already have children being born from frozen embryos. If you are extending the beginning of life, why shouldn't you also extend it later on?" Sternberg and his colleagues expect to use their new techniques to put themselves into long-term hibernation while they await the development of life-extending techniques to cure and prevent cancer, heart failure and Alzheimer's disease. Doctors believe the technique can immediately be used in complex surgery, where best results can be obtained by cooling the body to a level which would otherwise cause brain damage. Clinical trials of Hextend led by Michael Mythen, a consultant anaesthetist who worked on the project in America, are to begin at University College hospital, London, this year. It will be used in complex orthopedic, gynecological and stomach operations where there is a danger of catastrophic blood loss and where better results can be obtained at low temperatures. Kelvin Brockbank, a British-born scientist in South Carolina who has received funding from the American government for his research work in the allied field of preserving transplant organs, said deep-freezing of human tissue would be possible within a year. "There will be a whole range of applications for the technology," he said. "It will be up to people to decide how to use them." Lee From VM Fri Jan 7 15:20:45 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["125" "Friday" "7" "January" "2000" "16:40:09" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "9" "RE: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 125 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA13346 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:15:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA13338 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:15:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p469.gnt.com [204.49.91.85]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA25010; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:15:06 -0600 Message-ID: <002301bf5965$0197d580$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <4.44f7c54.25a7b378@aol.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , , Subject: RE: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:40:09 -0600 > > Actually I had an image of a crew of zoned out zombis trying > to operate a big > starship. A' la Rastafarian? Lee From VM Mon Jan 10 08:58:59 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1113" "Saturday" "8" "January" "2000" "17:28:57" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "27" "Re: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Suspended animation." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1113 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18135 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 08:30:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl ([148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA18119 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 08:30:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA09363 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 17:28:57 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200001081628.RAA09363@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 17:28:57 +0100 (MET) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 7 22:33:57 2000 > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 1/7/00 9:09:03 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: > > >> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 7 01:18:59 2000 > >> Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 00:20:50 +0000 > >> > >> Some cold water fish have a natural anti-frezze so it you develop that > >> for humans and keep the body at say 10 F, you may slow down > >> the chemical aging of the cells. > >> > >Some frogs do exactly that. They freeze in the ice, > >and thaw back without damage. > > Pretty rare in mammals thou. best I've heard was ground squirls that could > survive their body droping to below room temp. > Yes, with mammals it may prove much harder, as their cell metabolism is optimized to work at certain fixed temperature (or rather narrow range of temperatures). Going outside the range limits, even for a while (during freezing/thawing process) is therefore bound to make much serious damage (simple by "desynchronizing" various parallel biochemical processes) than in cold-blood animals. -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Mon Jan 10 08:58:59 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil] ["419" "Saturday" "8" "January" "2000" "17:54:26" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" "<200001081654.RAA09393@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>" "12" "RE: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Suspended animation." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 419 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21675 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 08:56:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl ([148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA21655 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 08:55:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA09393 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 17:54:26 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200001081654.RAA09393@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 17:54:26 +0100 (MET) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 8 00:20:54 2000 > From: "L. Parker" [...] > > It has aroused the interest of space scientists investigating > the possibility of interstellar travel, allowing human exploration > of galaxies many light years away. > Is it true that in common parlance in English "galaxy" means already simply a "star/planetary system"? -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Mon Jan 10 08:58:59 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1971" "Sunday" "9" "January" "2000" "00:36:36" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "56" "Re: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Suspended animation." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1971 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA00897 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 21:37:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA00891 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 21:37:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 8.d2.d22e0bb6 (3974); Sun, 9 Jan 2000 00:36:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 20 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: chithree@boo.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 00:36:36 EST In a message dated 1/8/00 12:59:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, chithree@boo.net writes: << near light speed? Man, you're just asking for it. Faster than light travel opens a whole can of worms. For one, we don't know how, and even if we did we would be hit by interstellar debris at near the speed of light, which would really tear a ship up. You'd need some kind of force field, or move space with the vehicle, and that's just plain silly. First I know how-see Deja.com: Discussion Search Results for starship1@aol.com and my message thread 4 light years distance divided by two years ship time = twice light speed. Second from the laws of probability we derive the rain drop effect explained as running fast between doorways we get less wet with more speed minimizes the amount of particle collisions. Thirdly I invented an electric armor to avoid most and lessen the damage from occasional collisions. See patent claim 7 and description of the preferred embodiment from my patent on star ship here Plasma Rocket Engine And even if there was enough to do on board, what if you didn't like your crewmates? Then you'd probably welcome the solitude of sleep. Fourth I would suggest as (I do to non believers like Kelly St) they click on the exit link of my holodeck and advise them a space suit will not be needed. I am the fellar you see when you click on the letter E of exit from holodeck. Holodeck Fifth-to get to my transporter room click here or any animated blue bar to transport to the many decks of my ship.. Transporter Room< /A> . .. >> From VM Mon Jan 10 08:58:59 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["659" "Sunday" "9" "January" "2000" "13:57:17" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "20" "Re: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Suspended animation." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 659 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11433 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 10:58:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA11428 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 10:58:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id f.88.8813c5ea (3867); Sun, 9 Jan 2000 13:57:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <88.8813c5ea.25aa340d@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 13:57:17 EST In a message dated 1/8/00 10:31:04 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: >Yes, with mammals it may prove much harder, as their cell metabolism >is optimized to work at certain fixed temperature >(or rather narrow range of temperatures). >Going outside the range limits, even for a while >(during freezing/thawing process) is therefore bound to >make much serious damage (simple by "desynchronizing" >various parallel biochemical processes) than in cold-blood animals. Yeah, a cold blooded creature must routinely survive extreams without cell distruction. A warm blooded creature doesn't get that cold unless its already dead. >-- Zenon Kulpa Kelly From VM Mon Jan 10 08:58:59 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1134" "Sunday" "9" "January" "2000" "15:49:44" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "27" "Re: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Suspended animation." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1134 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11992 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 12:50:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11983 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 12:50:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 8.8a.8a147cfd (4354); Sun, 9 Jan 2000 15:49:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8a.8a147cfd.25aa4e68@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com, chithree@boo.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 15:49:44 EST In a message dated 1/8/00 11:39:04 PM, STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: ><< near light speed? Man, you're just asking for it. > > Faster than light travel opens a whole can of worms. For one, we don't >know how, and even if we did we would be hit by interstellar debris >at near the speed of light, which would really tear a ship up. You'd > need some kind of force field, or move space with the vehicle, > and that's just plain silly. One current theory of faster then light (inspired by a physist listening to Star Trek technobable.) does involve moving a volume of space at faster then light speed. As to impacts at near light speed. Yes thats a MAJOR problem. One idea is to fire a stream of dust out ahead of the ship. Anything hiting it at those speeds would be vaporized and simple magnetic fields could shove it away. >First I know how-see Deja.com: Discussion Search Results >for starship1@aol.com and my message thread 4 light years distance divided > >by two years ship time = twice light speed. Two years ship time, doesn't equal two years of real time. Your not going at a real faster then light speed. From VM Mon Jan 10 08:58:59 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1343" "Sunday" "9" "January" "2000" "15:49:42" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "32" "starship-design: Re: StarShip Design - Hello" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Re: StarShip Design - Hello" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1343 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11930 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 12:50:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11924 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 12:50:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 3.45.452590fd (4354); Sun, 9 Jan 2000 15:49:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <45.452590fd.25aa4e66@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: kvision@gate.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: StarShip Design - Hello Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 15:49:42 EST In a message dated 1/8/00 9:14:09 PM, kvision@gate.net writes: >Hello, >I'm VERY curious about your web site. I'm not nuts or anything, I am >just curious about your site and feel that a StarShip is VERY possible. >Or did you guys just create your web site as a joke? Either way, I plan >on designing a ship of my own. Too bad you all use Macintosh. Cuzz on my >PC, using Visual Basic, I and a few others are creating Star Trek LCARS >interfaces for our computers. I have found that this type of interface >is VERY effective. And people love it. So why not Actually use it for a >ship? I would. > >I hope this is no joke, I would feel very ackward if it was... > >Knight Nope we were serious. You probably noticed their was way to much tech detail for a joke. ;) I've seen some sites based around the ST LCARS GUI look. The basic structure (before you add a lot of the sloppiness of the newer shows) was ok. (You might want to check out http://members.tripod.com/~adeadend/index2.htm for a interesting Star Trek site on ST techs with a ST like interface.) However geting the computer gear to work on the ship wasn't a real concern of ours. In 50 years you'ld have computer gear to work with far more capable and inteligent then the Star Trek concepts. Anyway. Yes we are serious and glad you liked the site. ;) Kelly From VM Mon Jan 10 08:58:59 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1491" "Sunday" "9" "January" "2000" "17:56:22" "-0500" "Connor" "chithree@boo.net" nil "30" "Re: Re: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Suspended animation." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1491 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA16614 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 14:58:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from boo-mda02.boo.net (IDENT:root@boo-mda02.boo.net [151.200.206.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA16609 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 14:58:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-boonet2-65.boo.net [208.184.99.65]) by boo-mda02.boo.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA30793 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 18:14:10 -0500 Message-Id: <200001092314.SAA30793@boo-mda02.boo.net> Organization: saint|ogden productions X-mailer: FoxMail 3.0 beta 1 [eg] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Connor From: Connor Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 17:56:22 -0500 On a totally irelevant subject, I thought of a form of passive interstellar travel, and I wanted to run it by all you thinky-types before I look stupid in the real world. I'm calling it the Casimir-Foreward balloon, and it runs solely on microwave radiation all through space. It's based on actual facts, but a few of the materials involved are semi-theoretical. materials: A thin mesh that will block some microwaves (ma) and let others through (mb) A material that lowers the frequency of mb microwaves to ma (like a phosphor.) construction: First you make a very light buffer system, like the inside of a car muffler, and coat it in the 'phosphor'. Now wrap the mesh all around it, leaving an opening in the back. That's about it. The idea, which you've probably figured out, is that the microwaves pass through the mesh and are lowered in frequency, getting trapped and deflected until they exit out the back. You could trail some kind of habitat behind it, and it wouldn't need any fuel. There are just a few problems. First, I'm totally uneducated, and may be missing a very obvious point that renders my whole idea impossible, thus making me look like a goon. Secondly, you would need a cartoonishly big balloon, and thirdly, travel would start out very slow, but eventually become almost as fast as the light leaving it (like ion drives.) Is this possible, and then is it practical? Connor chithree@boo.net Connor chithree@boo.net From VM Mon Jan 10 08:58:59 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["857" "Monday" "10" "January" "2000" "00:18:29" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "18" "Re: starship-design: Re: StarShip Design - Hello" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Re: StarShip Design - Hello" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 857 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA07883 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 16:14:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA07878 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 16:14:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin42.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.42]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA09783 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 17:14:14 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38792554.70DB2EE7@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <45.452590fd.25aa4e66@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: StarShip Design - Hello Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 00:18:29 +0000 > >I and a few others are creating Star Trek LCARS >interfaces for our computers. I have found that this type of interface >is VERY effective. And people love it. So why not Actually use it. >In 50 years you'ld have computer gear to work with far more capable >and inteligent then the Star Trek concepts. > Sure we will. I have seen the problems with the computers on star trek and don't tell me they work well. I am upgrading to manual overrides all over , Notepad here, pencil there, pocket calculator in the pocket and $$$ in the mattress. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Where a calculator like the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1 1/2 tons." Popular Mechanics, March 1949 From VM Mon Jan 10 09:17:45 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["498" "Monday" "10" "January" "2000" "09:06:02" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "14" "RE: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 498 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02648 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:06:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02642; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:06:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14458.4474.108427.999678@darkwing.uoregon.edu> In-Reply-To: <200001081654.RAA09393@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> References: <200001081654.RAA09393@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Zenon Kulpa Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:06:02 -0800 (PST) Zenon Kulpa writes: > > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 8 00:20:54 2000 > > From: "L. Parker" > [...] > > > > It has aroused the interest of space scientists investigating > > the possibility of interstellar travel, allowing human exploration > > of galaxies many light years away. > > > Is it true that in common parlance in English "galaxy" > means already simply a "star/planetary system"? No. At least not the English I'm used to. From VM Mon Jan 10 10:35:13 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["797" "Monday" "10" "January" "2000" "18:23:03" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "22" "RE: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 797 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11621 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:24:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl ([148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11615 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:24:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id SAA10967; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 18:23:03 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200001101723.SAA10967@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: RE: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 18:23:03 +0100 (MET) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Jan 10 18:18:14 2000 > From: Steve VanDevender > > Zenon Kulpa writes: > > > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 8 00:20:54 2000 > > > From: "L. Parker" > > [...] > > > > > > It has aroused the interest of space scientists investigating > > > the possibility of interstellar travel, allowing human exploration > > > of galaxies many light years away. > > > > > Is it true that in common parlance in English "galaxy" > > means already simply a "star/planetary system"? > > No. At least not the English I'm used to. > I find that usage more and more often - in movies, press news [like that quoted above], TV. So I am starting to wonder... -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Mon Jan 10 10:49:57 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["604" "Monday" "10" "January" "2000" "10:40:02" "-0800" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "20" "RE: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 604 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21861 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:40:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from jason05.u.washington.edu (root@jason05.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21854 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:40:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from dante22.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante22.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.72]) by jason05.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id KAA44576; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:40:03 -0800 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante22.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id KAA56154; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:40:02 -0800 In-Reply-To: <200001081654.RAA09393@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" From: "N. Lindberg" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Zenon Kulpa cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:40:02 -0800 (PST) In English, "galaxy" means a large gravitationaly bound collection of stars, such as our own milky way, M31, etc. On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Zenon Kulpa wrote: > > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 8 00:20:54 2000 > > From: "L. Parker" > [...] > > > > It has aroused the interest of space scientists investigating > > the possibility of interstellar travel, allowing human exploration > > of galaxies many light years away. > > > Is it true that in common parlance in English "galaxy" > means already simply a "star/planetary system"? > > -- Zenon Kulpa > From VM Mon Jan 10 10:49:57 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["943" "Monday" "10" "January" "2000" "19:44:03" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "28" "RE: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 943 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25883 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:46:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl ([148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA23890 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:45:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id TAA11085 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:44:03 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200001101844.TAA11085@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:44:03 +0100 (MET) > From nlindber@u.washington.edu Mon Jan 10 19:40:26 2000 > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:40:02 -0800 (PST) > > In English, "galaxy" means a large gravitationaly bound collection of > stars, such as our own milky way, M31, etc. > That much I know since my childhood ;-) but more and more often I find the word used apparently in the meaning indicated below. If this will spread, dictionaries will have to notice that... -- Zenon > On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Zenon Kulpa wrote: > > > > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 8 00:20:54 2000 > > > From: "L. Parker" > > [...] > > > > > > It has aroused the interest of space scientists investigating > > > the possibility of interstellar travel, allowing human exploration > > > of galaxies many light years away. > > > > > Is it true that in common parlance in English "galaxy" > > means already simply a "star/planetary system"? > > > > -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Mon Jan 10 13:50:34 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["963" "Monday" "10" "January" "2000" "15:37:58" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "32" "Re: RE: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 963 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA14033 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 12:39:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14023 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 12:39:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id f.ca.ca681143 (4363); Mon, 10 Jan 2000 15:37:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 15:37:58 EST In a message dated 1/10/00 11:28:56 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: >> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Jan 10 18:18:14 2000 >> From: Steve VanDevender >> >> Zenon Kulpa writes: >> > > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 8 00:20:54 >2000 >> > > From: "L. Parker" >> > [...] >> > > >> > > It has aroused the interest of space scientists investigating >> > > the possibility of interstellar travel, allowing human exploration > >> > > of galaxies many light years away. >> > > >> > Is it true that in common parlance in English "galaxy" >> > means already simply a "star/planetary system"? >> >> No. At least not the English I'm used to. >> >I find that usage more and more often - in movies, >press news [like that quoted above], TV. >So I am starting to wonder... > >-- Zenon Kulpa No just more and more ignorant folks writing about space. Kelly From VM Tue Jan 11 08:01:05 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2546" "Tuesday" "11" "January" "2000" "00:00:36" "-0800" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "58" "Re: Re: starship-design: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2546 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11969 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 00:00:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from jason03.u.washington.edu (root@jason03.u.washington.edu [140.142.77.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA11963 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 00:00:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from dante27.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante27.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.82]) by jason03.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id AAA29744; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 00:00:42 -0800 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante27.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id AAA88924; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 00:00:36 -0800 In-Reply-To: <200001092314.SAA30793@boo-mda02.boo.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" From: "N. Lindberg" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Connor cc: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Suspended animation. Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 00:00:36 -0800 (PST) Connor, This is quite an interesting idea, one I liked quite a bit. Here are the only two problems i see with your idea. First, i'm not sure if your 'phosphor' exists, it might though. Second:: The energy source for the engine is the microwave background, which is leftovers from the big bang (I don't think that the casmir effect has much to do with this) In essence, you are trying to extract useful work (accelerate the starship) from the thermal energy of the universe, the same as trying to run a boat by sucking heat out of the ocean. This angers the gods of thermodynamics. However, I can't for the life of me think of what process might go on to keep your ship hove to. As to practicality, I'm the wrong guy to ask. I still think that digging through 52 miles of Texas bedrock so that physicists can have a new toy is a really great idea. Also, art should be generously publicly funded, no matter how incomprehensible. Best Regards, Nels Lindberg On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Connor wrote: > On a totally irelevant subject, I thought of a form of passive > interstellar travel, and I wanted to run it by all you thinky-types > before I look stupid in the real world. I'm calling it the > Casimir-Foreward balloon, and it runs solely on microwave radiation > all through space. It's based on actual facts, but a few of the > materials involved are semi-theoretical. > > materials: A thin mesh that will block some microwaves (ma) and let > others through (mb) > A material that lowers the frequency of mb microwaves to > ma (like a phosphor.) > > construction: First you make a very light buffer system, like the > inside of a car muffler, and coat it in the 'phosphor'. Now wrap the > mesh all around it, leaving an > opening in the back. That's about it. > > The idea, which you've probably figured out, is that the > microwaves pass through the mesh and are lowered in frequency, getting > trapped and deflected until they exit out the back. You could trail > some kind of habitat behind it, and it wouldn't need any fuel. > There are just a few problems. First, I'm totally uneducated, > and may be missing a very obvious point that renders my whole idea > impossible, thus making me look like a goon. Secondly, you would need > a cartoonishly big balloon, and thirdly, travel would start out very > slow, but eventually become almost as fast as the light leaving it > (like ion drives.) > > Is this possible, and then is it practical? > > > Connor > chithree@boo.net > Connor > chithree@boo.net > > From VM Tue Jan 11 12:39:44 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["561" "Tuesday" "11" "January" "2000" "19:46:42" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "17" "starship-design: Re: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 561 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00828 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:36:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp3.xs4all.nl (smtp3.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.49]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA00795 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:36:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from - (dc2-isdn1097.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.152.73]) by smtp3.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA28308 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 21:36:35 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000111194642.006a3488@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Suspended animation. Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:46:42 +0100 Hi Connor, You thoughts are on the right track; question that what is taken for granted. Yet take effort to pursue solving your questions yourself. >The idea, ..., is that the microwaves >pass through the mesh and are lowered in frequency, getting trapped >and deflected until they exit out the back. And what if the waves (which are all through space as you mention) go the reverse way? Thus into the back of the muffler, lowering their frequency, and finally not being able to exit through the mesh (because it blocks the lower frequency waves)? Timothy From VM Tue Jan 11 13:14:42 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["151" "Tuesday" "11" "January" "2000" "16:10:49" "-0500" "Connor" "chithree@boo.net" nil "6" "Re: starship-design: Re: Suspended animation." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 151 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA23225 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 13:13:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from boo-mda02.boo.net (IDENT:root@boo-mda02.boo.net [151.200.206.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23205 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 13:13:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-boonet2-12.boo.net [208.184.99.12]) by boo-mda02.boo.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA19916 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 16:28:52 -0500 Message-Id: <200001112128.QAA19916@boo-mda02.boo.net> Organization: saint|ogden productions X-mailer: FoxMail 3.0 beta 1 [eg] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Connor From: Connor Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Suspended animation. Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 16:10:49 -0500 If they go through the back they come back out the back. The whole idea is that everything that goes in comes out the back. Connor chithree@boo.net From VM Tue Jan 11 16:07:12 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["171" "Tuesday" "11" "January" "2000" "18:00:00" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "5" "starship-design: Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 171 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA02759 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 16:04:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA02745 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 16:04:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p477.gnt.com [204.49.91.93]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA09628 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 18:03:54 -0600 Message-ID: <000401bf5c90$79bb5770$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000111194642.006a3488@pop.xs4all.nl> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: starship-design: Relativity Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 18:00:00 -0600 Okay, who is the resident guru on relativity? I know we have had these discussions before, but I have more questions. I should never have bought Taylor & Wheeler.... Lee From VM Tue Jan 11 16:24:41 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil] ["945" "Tuesday" "11" "January" "2000" "19:22:25" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "" "30" "Re: starship-design: Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 945 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA13094 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 16:23:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA13088 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 16:23:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 4.bf.bf388e4c (3971); Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:22:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 20 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Relativity Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:22:25 EST In a message dated 1/11/00 4:04:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: << Okay, who is the resident guru on relativity? I know we have had these discussions before, but I have more questions. I should never have bought Taylor & Wheeler.... Lee That would be me as KellySt only knows a few below light speed relativity effects. For faster than light or lesser velocity effects of starships ask your questions in this tread or email the owner of the site below (me) Regards Tom Jackson >> Plasma Rocket Engine Grasshopper, Star Travel is no place for girlie boys, To understand Tom's atomic rocket power you must first understand the power of the Dark side of the force--. Tom's Atomic Bomb (working diagrams) visit below with courage only. Yoda A Definitive Analysis of Atomic Power From VM Tue Jan 11 16:31:10 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1009" "Tuesday" "11" "January" "2000" "16:29:00" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "26" "Re: starship-design: Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1009 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14799 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 16:29:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14793; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 16:29:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14459.51916.183572.902355@darkwing.uoregon.edu> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Relativity Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 16:29:00 -0800 (PST) STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 1/11/00 4:04:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, > lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > > Okay, who is the resident guru on relativity? I know we have had these > discussions before, but I have more questions. I should never have bought > Taylor & Wheeler.... > > Lee > > That would be me as KellySt only knows a few below light speed relativity > effects. > For faster than light or lesser velocity effects of starships ask your > questions in this tread or email the owner of the site below (me) > > Regards > Tom Jackson I'd have to say that from what you've written so far I don't have the slightest trust that you can intelligently answer questions about relativity. Since relativity doesn't have faster-than-light effects you've already given away that you don't really understand relativity at all. Lee, I'd suggest asking Timothy Van der Linden or me, as we seem to understand special relativity approximately the way physicists do. From VM Tue Jan 11 16:51:29 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["483" "Tuesday" "11" "January" "2000" "18:49:13" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "12" "RE: starship-design: Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 483 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA25403 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 16:49:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25397 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 16:49:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p478.gnt.com [204.49.91.94]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA17881; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 18:49:31 -0600 Message-ID: <000501bf5c96$e2904a20$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <14459.51916.183572.902355@darkwing.uoregon.edu> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Steve VanDevender'" , Subject: RE: starship-design: Relativity Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 18:49:13 -0600 I kind of thought so... Okay, first question: If the limit of T (the time required to go from point A to point B) as v approached c equals zero, why isn't the limit of ABbar (the length of the worldline) as v approaches c equal to zero? I sort of understand how and why it is actually shorter even though it isn't a straight line, but why doesn't it go to zero as v approaches arbitrarily close to c? Or have I simply not read far enough yet? Maybe I'm just totally confused? Lee From VM Tue Jan 11 16:58:25 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["559" "Tuesday" "11" "January" "2000" "19:54:11" "-0500" "Connor" "chithree@boo.net" nil "8" "Re: Re: starship-design: Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 559 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA28239 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 16:56:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from boo-mda02.boo.net (IDENT:root@boo-mda02.boo.net [151.200.206.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA28227 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 16:56:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-boonet2-31.boo.net [208.184.99.31]) by boo-mda02.boo.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA30397 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:12:15 -0500 Message-Id: <200001120112.UAA30397@boo-mda02.boo.net> Organization: saint|ogden productions X-mailer: FoxMail 3.0 beta 1 [eg] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Connor From: Connor Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Relativity Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:54:11 -0500 I'm gonna promote myself as semi-knowledgable. I've read a few books, and I haven't been corrupted by much science fiction foolishness. As for FTL travel, it isn't a concept I've ever baught into, because a lot of things tell me it's impossible and very few tell me that it is. The closer you get to light speed the harder it becomes to accellerate (sp?), so it sets a practicle cieling on all the propulsion we have so far that's pretty far below light speed. The only thing I'm satisfied with right now is my ballon thing, and maybe ion drive. From VM Tue Jan 11 17:09:13 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1580" "Tuesday" "11" "January" "2000" "17:07:02" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "31" "RE: starship-design: Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1580 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03865 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 17:07:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03853; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 17:07:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14459.54198.620583.617471@darkwing.uoregon.edu> In-Reply-To: <000501bf5c96$e2904a20$0401a8c0@broadsword> References: <14459.51916.183572.902355@darkwing.uoregon.edu> <000501bf5c96$e2904a20$0401a8c0@broadsword> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: Subject: RE: starship-design: Relativity Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 17:07:02 -0800 (PST) L. Parker writes: > I kind of thought so... > > Okay, first question: > > If the limit of T (the time required to go from point A to point B) as v > approached c equals zero, why isn't the limit of ABbar (the length of the > worldline) as v approaches c equal to zero? I sort of understand how and why > it is actually shorter even though it isn't a straight line, but why doesn't > it go to zero as v approaches arbitrarily close to c? Or have I simply not > read far enough yet? Maybe I'm just totally confused? > > Lee Is this in reference to a particular exercise or passage in _Spacetime Physics_? If so, which one? It would help me understand the context. I hope you have the second (1989) edition; otherwise it may be a bit hard to connect with the copy I have. It depends on what you mean by "the length of the worldline". The definition that is invariant for all observers is that the "length" of the worldline (typically called the interval in _Spacetime Physics_) is is equal to the elapsed time experienced by the object that travels along that worldline between event A and event B. Depending on their relative velocities to that object other observers will see event A and event B as being different distances from each other and the object as taking different amounts of their time to travel from event A to event B. The ratio between the amount of time shown on a clock carried with the object and the amount of their time they measure for the passage from point A to point B goes to zero as the relative velocity of the object approaches c. From VM Wed Jan 12 10:16:25 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1247" "Tuesday" "11" "January" "2000" "21:36:00" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "26" "RE: starship-design: Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1247 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA25638 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:37:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA25633 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:37:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p432.gnt.com [204.49.91.48]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id VAA15133; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 21:37:05 -0600 Message-ID: <000801bf5cae$4b396220$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <14459.54198.620583.617471@darkwing.uoregon.edu> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Steve VanDevender'" Cc: Subject: RE: starship-design: Relativity Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 21:36:00 -0600 I was in Chapter 5, specifically, Figure 5-8. It seems illogical that the worldline indicated could approach zero, but that does seem to be what is represented. Lee > Is this in reference to a particular exercise or passage in _Spacetime > Physics_? If so, which one? It would help me understand the context. > I hope you have the second (1989) edition; otherwise it may be a bit > hard to connect with the copy I have. > > It depends on what you mean by "the length of the worldline". The > definition that is invariant for all observers is that the "length" of > the worldline (typically called the interval in _Spacetime > Physics_) is > is equal to the elapsed time experienced by the object that travels > along that worldline between event A and event B. Depending on their > relative velocities to that object other observers will see > event A and > event B as being different distances from each other and the object as > taking different amounts of their time to travel from event A to event > B. The ratio between the amount of time shown on a clock carried with > the object and the amount of their time they measure for the passage > from point A to point B goes to zero as the relative velocity of the > object approaches c. From VM Wed Jan 12 10:16:25 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2803" "Tuesday" "11" "January" "2000" "20:17:58" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "57" "RE: starship-design: Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2803 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA06283 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:18:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA06276 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:18:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA24569; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:18:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19900; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:18:15 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14460.118.410985.569402@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <000801bf5cae$4b396220$0401a8c0@broadsword> References: <14459.54198.620583.617471@darkwing.uoregon.edu> <000801bf5cae$4b396220$0401a8c0@broadsword> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" Cc: Subject: RE: starship-design: Relativity Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:17:58 -0800 (PST) L. Parker writes: > I was in Chapter 5, specifically, Figure 5-8. It seems illogical that the > worldline indicated could approach zero, but that does seem to be what is > represented. > > Lee It's not so much that the interval along the curved worldline approaches zero; it's that the curved worldline has _less_ interval than the straight one, or that a clock carried along the curved worldline experiences less time than a clock carried along the straight one, even though both start and end with the same events. Curved worldlines correspond to paths of objects undergoing acceleration. In general a more curved worldline has less interval than a less curved one. So yes, the higher the acceleration and the closer to c the the object gets during its round trip, the less time it experiences. Mathematically, this counterintuitive result is the consequence of the non-Euclidean geometry of spacetime; drawn on a sheet of paper with (locally) Euclidean geometry, it's initially hard to get used to the idea that the longer line is the shorter interval. Note the equation that they show with figure 5-8; it's the basis of doing a non-Euclidean line integral (if you're familiar with calculus -- otherwise I'm probably about to lose you). Let's say you have a graph with the axes x and t, and a parameterized function f(t') = (x(t'), t(t')) (that is, a function that returns an (x, t) coordinate given the parameter t'). In Euclidean geometry, the length of the curve swept out by f(t') is integral (sqrt((d x(t')/dt')^2 + (d t(t')/dt')^2)) dt' (pardon the ASCII math). Note that the function being integrated really represents the length of an infinitesimal segment of the curve, i.e. sqrt((dx)^2 + (dt)^2). But spacetime geometry is different. There the spacetime interval along an infinitesimal segment of a curve is sqrt((dt)^2 - (dx)^2), and so the "interval integral" for the path along a worldline is integral (sqrt((d t(t')/dt)^2 - (d x(t')/dt')^2)) dt' The instaneous speed along the worldline at a particular point is (d x(t'))/(d t(t')), so the higher the speed at that point, the less the contribution to the integral. That's why I started with the somewhat unconventional notation of labeling the axes x and t instead of x and y, to match the notation used in spacetime diagrams. t' represents the proper time along the worldline, which is a relativistic invariant, and x(t') and t(t') represent the spacetime coordinates of a point in a frame at which a clock carried along the worldline reads t'. You can actually represent any worldline as a parameterized function of t', and the "interval integral" produces the same result in all frames for the same worldline, even though the functions x(t') and t(t') depend on the frame the observations are being taken in. From VM Wed Jan 12 10:16:25 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1533" "Wednesday" "12" "January" "2000" "06:37:50" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "43" "RE: starship-design: Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1533 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA28865 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:44:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA28860 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:44:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p457.gnt.com [204.49.91.73]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA30150; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 06:44:28 -0600 Message-ID: <002101bf5cfa$c31a66d0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <14460.118.410985.569402@tzadkiel.efn.org> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Steve VanDevender'" Cc: Subject: RE: starship-design: Relativity Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 06:37:50 -0600 > L. Parker writes: > > I was in Chapter 5, specifically, Figure 5-8. It seems > illogical that the > > worldline indicated could approach zero, but that does > seem to be what is > > represented. > > > > Lee > > It's not so much that the interval along the curved worldline > approaches > zero; it's that the curved worldline has _less_ interval than the > straight one, or that a clock carried along the curved worldline > experiences less time than a clock carried along the straight > one, even > though both start and end with the same events. Curved worldlines > correspond to paths of objects undergoing acceleration. I get it, I wasn't thinking of the worldline quite right before. > > In general a more curved worldline has less interval than a > less curved > one. So yes, the higher the acceleration and the closer to c the > object gets during its round trip, the less time it experiences. But I still had the right idea. > > Mathematically, this counterintuitive result is the consequence of the > non-Euclidean geometry of spacetime; drawn on a sheet of paper with > (locally) Euclidean geometry, it's initially hard to get used to the > idea that the longer line is the shorter interval. Note the equation > that they show with figure 5-8; it's the basis of doing a > non-Euclidean > line integral (if you're familiar with calculus -- otherwise I'm > probably about to lose you). No, I still can follow Calculus, just don't ask me to actually do any! Thanks Steve, more questions later... Lee From VM Wed Jan 12 14:38:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["333" "Wednesday" "12" "January" "2000" "23:21:03" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "10" "starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 333 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA28438 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:27:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp3.xs4all.nl (smtp3.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.49]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA28388 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:27:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from - (dc2-isdn548.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.150.36]) by smtp3.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA26595 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 23:27:23 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000112232103.006b0f1c@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <200001112128.QAA19916@boo-mda02.boo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 23:21:03 +0100 Hello Connor, >If they go through the back they come back out the back. The whole >idea is that everything that goes in comes out the back. Yes I understood the idea, but please tell me in detail what the path of the microwave or photon looks like for *both* directions. And don't forget to tell me why it goes that path. Timothy From VM Thu Jan 13 10:09:56 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["25" "Wednesday" "12" "January" "2000" "21:56:59" "-0500" "Connor" "chithree@boo.net" nil "3" "Fw: Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 25 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA17118 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:59:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from boo-mda02.boo.net (IDENT:root@boo-mda02.boo.net [151.200.206.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA17107 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:59:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-boonet2-13.boo.net [208.184.99.13]) by boo-mda02.boo.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA23766 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 22:15:15 -0500 Message-Id: <200001130315.WAA23766@boo-mda02.boo.net> Organization: saint|ogden productions X-mailer: FoxMail 3.0 beta 1 [eg] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Connor From: Connor Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Fw: Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 21:56:59 -0500 Connor chithree@boo.net From VM Thu Jan 13 11:05:13 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["869" "Thursday" "13" "January" "2000" "11:02:22" "-0800" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "22" "Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 869 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA09035 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:02:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from jason01.u.washington.edu (root@jason01.u.washington.edu [140.142.70.24]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09023 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:02:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from dante17.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante17.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.67]) by jason01.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id LAA17138; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:02:23 -0800 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante17.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id LAA77194; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:02:22 -0800 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000112232103.006b0f1c@pop.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" From: "N. Lindberg" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Timothy van der Linden cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:02:22 -0800 (PST) Connor & everybody else, I have a question about the 'phosphor' inside the balloon, and about phosphorescent materiels in general. Apparently, a phosphor absorbs a high-energy photon, and re-emits low energy photons. Could someone say something about how this works? Are the photons emitted one at a time, or all together? What is the typical energy difference/proportion between absorbed & emitted light. Finally, is any energy left over? Nels Lindberg On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Timothy van der Linden wrote: > Hello Connor, > > >If they go through the back they come back out the back. The whole > >idea is that everything that goes in comes out the back. > > Yes I understood the idea, but please tell me in detail what the path of > the microwave or photon looks like for *both* directions. And don't forget > to tell me why it goes that path. > > Timothy > From VM Thu Jan 13 12:14:51 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3306" "Thursday" "13" "January" "2000" "21:07:53" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "78" "Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3306 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA20179 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:07:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA20120 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:07:46 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id VAA13739 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 21:07:53 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200001132007.VAA13739@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 21:07:53 +0100 (MET) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Jan 13 20:05:32 2000 > From: "N. Lindberg" > > I have a question about the 'phosphor' inside the balloon, and > about phosphorescent materiels in general. > As far as I know: > Apparently, a phosphor absorbs > a high-energy photon, and re-emits low energy photons. > Sometimes other way around, but rarely. Also, there is phosphorescence and luminescence. The difference is in the delay between absorbing (some energy, e.g., a photon) and emitting a photon. Phosphorescent materials have long delay (even days), so they shine long after the excitation ended (e.g., materials glowing in the dark) while luminescent materials stop to radiate almost immediately after the excitation stopped. Also, the excitation may be of different nature - electromagnetic radiation (what we are talking about here), corpuscular radiation (e.g. electrons - as in cathode-ray tube screen and conventional TV displays), heat (thermoluminescent materials, or just thermal radiation), etc. > Could someone say something about how this works? > Somewhat like in a laser, but without the coherent emission (see below). In general, the excitation pumps (exterior) electrons in molecules of the material to higher energy levels, from which they (after some delay, spontaneously or under some external influence) fall down back to their previous levels (usually in several steps), emitting photons along the way. Higher energy of outcoming photons occurs when the incoming photons shift upward an electron in several (e.g., two) steps to such a level, that it falls down by a distance larger than one step of its upward move. So, for several (say, two) input photons we get one output photon, though of higher energy (shorter wavelength). > Are the photons emitted one at a time, or all together? > In a laser (or maser), the emitted photon excites other "pumped" molecules to emit immediately and in phase with it, hence the "all together" lasering effects and phase coherence of output. In conventional materials every emission act works more or less individually. > What is the typical energy difference/proportion between > absorbed & emitted light. > Ehem, what means "typical" here? There is the whole range o proportions, byt of course, always there is less energy emitted than absorbed (usually much less - the efficiency of the process is rather low). > Finally, is any energy left over? > Yes, usually a significant percentage (as stated above). The sources of loss: - not all exciting photons are absorbed (some go through, some are reflected); - still some incoming photons are absorbed in other ways (eg., in inner electron layers) and are converted to heat; - the emitted photons are of lower energy (longer wavelength), or - where it does not apply - are of lower energy than the sum of energies of those photons which were used in the process of generating them; - falling down of electrons not always occurs along the standard route, so that they may emit other photons than desired - often those that are then easily (re)absorbed and converted to heat; - the "desired" photons may get absorbed and converted to other ones or to heat before they manage to leave the material. -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Thu Jan 13 12:39:45 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["728" "Thursday" "13" "January" "2000" "20:41:36" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "16" "starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 728 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA16259 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:37:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA16208 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:37:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin36.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.36]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA18839 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:36:59 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <387E3880.F5427C4D@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <200001132007.VAA13739@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 20:41:36 +0000 What size surface area's are we talking about? Faster you go more streamlined is the rule, that has been around since the the stoneage. The limiting factor with any sail (loosely) type craft is the kind of stuff that hits the sail.Travel speed could be limited well below light speed,regardless of what propulsion system is used. The type of "deflector" shield for all that space junk will be a major design factor. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Where a calculator like the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1 1/2 tons." Popular Mechanics, March 1949 From VM Thu Jan 13 13:09:45 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1395" "Thursday" "13" "January" "2000" "16:4:24" "-0500" "Connor" "chithree@boo.net" nil "23" "starship-design: Linear EMP motor (name needs work)" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1395 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA00962 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:07:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from boo-mda02.boo.net (IDENT:root@boo-mda02.boo.net [151.200.206.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA00727 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:07:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-boonet2-29.boo.net [208.184.99.29]) by boo-mda02.boo.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA31809 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:22:41 -0500 Message-Id: <200001132122.QAA31809@boo-mda02.boo.net> Organization: saint|ogden productions X-mailer: FoxMail 3.0 beta 1 [eg] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Connor From: Connor Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: starship-design: Linear EMP motor (name needs work) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:4:24 -0500 The wave goes in the back, is deflected around a cartoonish number of times, and eventually finds it's way back out. Same thing with it entering through the skin. I'm not going to go through every individual bounce. I have another idea for interstelar propulsion. It probably isn't very energy efficient, but it's fuel free. By the way, if my public brainstorming is getting obtrusive, everyone just let me know. I can take it. Did I even use obtrusive right? So once I was reading about an idea for propulsion, one where the sun and the earth were connected by a long aluminum bar. So the idea is, the sun emits an electromagnetic pulse for a minute, and it takes eight minutes to get to the earth. When it reaches it, the earth is pulled foreward in the pulse for a minute, and the whole structure moves foreward. This happens again and again, and the whole thing gets going pretty fast. By the way, this is hypothetical. So this isn't really practicle for interstellar travel, because it's so big, and I don't think the sun does that :). But I was thinking that you could keep the apparatus in a big tube of liquid sodium. The speed of light in liquid Na is only 52 ft. Per second, so with a fancy computer it would probably only have to be 25 feet long. How does this sound to anybody? Connor chithree@boo.net From VM Thu Jan 13 13:46:27 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1803" "Thursday" "13" "January" "2000" "13:39:19" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "32" "starship-design: Linear EMP motor (name needs work)" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1803 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA25607 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:39:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25564 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:39:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23261; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:39:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA31173; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:39:21 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14462.17927.195722.244752@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <200001132122.QAA31809@boo-mda02.boo.net> References: <200001132122.QAA31809@boo-mda02.boo.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Connor Cc: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: starship-design: Linear EMP motor (name needs work) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:39:19 -0800 (PST) Connor writes: > So once I was reading about an idea for propulsion, one where the sun > and the earth were connected by a long aluminum bar. So the idea is, > the sun emits an electromagnetic pulse for a minute, and it takes > eight minutes to get to the earth. When it reaches it, the earth is > pulled foreward in the pulse for a minute, and the whole structure > moves foreward. This happens again and again, and the whole thing > gets going pretty fast. By the way, this is hypothetical. > > So this isn't really practicle for interstellar travel, because it's > so big, and I don't think the sun does that :). But I was thinking > that you could keep the apparatus in a big tube of liquid sodium. The > speed of light in liquid Na is only 52 ft. Per second, so with a > fancy computer it would probably only have to be 25 feet long. How > does this sound to anybody? I don't get it. If the Earth pushes or pulls on this rod, then the compression or extension travels back along the rod at no greater than the speed of light and pushes or pulls back on the Sun, and there is no net motion. Remember conservation of momentum? There's also no such thing as a perfectly rigid instantaneously-transmitting rod. Matter is held together by electromagnetic interactions, so any tap on one end of a rod propagates at at most the speed of light along it to the other end. Basically, there is no way to induce motion that violates conservation of momentum; if something moves one way, something else has to move the other. This can get rather subtle, in the case of propulsion that involves emitting electromagnetic or gravity waves in one direction so that the drive system goes in the other, but there is always _something_ that gets thrown out the back or pulled on from the front. From VM Thu Jan 13 14:14:02 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1211" "Thursday" "13" "January" "2000" "23:10:19" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "30" "starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1211 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA10302 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 14:11:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.48]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10261 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 14:11:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from - (dc2-isdn1032.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.152.8]) by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA08173 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 23:11:03 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000113231019.006b6cd4@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <200001130313.WAA23646@boo-mda02.boo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 23:10:19 +0100 Hi Connor, >alright. I admit, I'm really avoiding the microwaves' penetrating powers. >Just imagine a tighter mesh all throughout the ship. So the balloon is >divided up by compartments, like a muffler, but they're all connected by >holes and things. If the beam goes in the back hole, it is defelected >around until eventually it comes back out the back. In your first email you wrote "... the microwaves [coming from outside the muffler] pass through the mesh and are lowered in frequency ...". This makes me assume that the frequency lowering phospor is on the inside of the muffler. Does this frequency lowering phospor not work for beams that come through the back hole? >I can't really >describe it in any more detail than that, but I don't think I should have >to. Again, if it comes in through the skin, it is deflected around until >it comes out the back. Yes, dat is consistent with what you wrote the first time, except that this time you do not mention anything about the frequency change. The same change which seemed important in your first email. Is it not important anymore? I did ask why the beam took a certain path, thus also why it reflects and does not go straight through. Timothy From VM Thu Jan 13 15:44:18 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["36" "Thursday" "13" "January" "2000" "18:24:59" "-0500" "Connor" "chithree@boo.net" nil "1" "Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 36 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA13990 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:28:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from boo-mda02.boo.net (IDENT:root@boo-mda02.boo.net [151.200.206.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA13810 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:27:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-boonet2-29.boo.net [208.184.99.29]) by boo-mda02.boo.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA06149 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:43:17 -0500 Message-Id: <200001132343.SAA06149@boo-mda02.boo.net> Organization: saint|ogden productions X-mailer: FoxMail 3.0 beta 1 [eg] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Connor From: Connor Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:24:59 -0500 Well that's dissapointing. Oh well. From VM Thu Jan 13 15:52:42 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5651" "Thursday" "13" "January" "2000" "18:34:21" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "107" "Re: starship-design: Linear EMP motor (name needs work)" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5651 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA17576 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:35:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA17570 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:35:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id s.b5.13f2c7 (3966); Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:34:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 20 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stevev@efn.org CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Linear EMP motor (name needs work) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:34:21 EST In a message dated 1/13/00 1:40:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, stevev@efn.org writes: << Subj: starship-design: Linear EMP motor (name needs work) Date: 1/13/00 1:40:32 PM Pacific Standard Time From: stevev@efn.org (Steve VanDevender) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Reply-to: stevev@efn.org (Steve VanDevender) To: chithree@boo.net (Connor) CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu) Connor writes: > So once I was reading about an idea for propulsion, one where the sun > and the earth were connected by a long aluminum bar. So the idea is, > the sun emits an electromagnetic pulse for a minute, and it takes > eight minutes to get to the earth. When it reaches it, the earth is > pulled foreward in the pulse for a minute, and the whole structure > moves foreward. This happens again and again, and the whole thing > gets going pretty fast. By the way, this is hypothetical. > > So this isn't really practicle for interstellar travel, because it's > so big, and I don't think the sun does that :). But I was thinking > that you could keep the apparatus in a big tube of liquid sodium. The > speed of light in liquid Na is only 52 ft. Per second, so with a > fancy computer it would probably only have to be 25 feet long. How > does this sound to anybody? I don't get it. If the Earth pushes or pulls on this rod, then the compression or extension travels back along the rod at no greater than the speed of light and pushes or pulls back on the Sun, and there is no net motion. Remember conservation of momentum? There's also no such thing as a perfectly rigid instantaneously-transmitting rod. Matter is held together by electromagnetic interactions, so any tap on one end of a rod propagates at at most the speed of light along it to the other end. :Pardon my colon color form but mail replier has bug (no >>, > placed correctly. I : :am attempting to fix. :You are correct only a shockwave from the tap travels to the other end. Rigidity is a :hardness measured factor between 0 and 1 with 1 being diamond. The shock wave :speed varies with the material. To determine the magnitude of the impact shock :wave use the equation Force of impact = Rigidity times Mass times Velocity, Use :the mass of the "tapper" and the velocity of the Tapper on impact. Steel has a :rigidity of very near one so in ballistics with metal bullets the rigidity 1 is usually not :writen as 1MV= MV with MV undersatood to be 1MV. In Martial Arts this ballistics :equation allows a 200 pound man to deliver a 900 pound striking impact force per square :inch. . Basically, there is no way to induce motion that violates conservation of momentum; if something moves one way, something else has to move the other. :Not nessasarily. Attach a board to the tops of two five gallon buckets open side :down. Stand on board and move body forward rapidly without moving feet along a :ine parallel with the bucket centers. You will find you can walk across the concrete :floor inch by inch with each motion. Conservation of momentum is maintained but :your conclusion is proven false. Mass times velocity one way = mass times velocity :the other way in rockets. In particle accelerators E= 1/2Mass times velocity so :does not have the counter force. That is why the energy in the rapid motion :translates to forward motion of the man an buckets. Rockets and Particle :accelerators have different max velocities as different equations are used..... This can get rather subtle, in the case of propulsion that involves emitting electromagnetic or gravity waves in one direction so that the drive system goes in the other, but there is always _something_ that gets thrown out the back or pulled on from the front. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yb05.mx.aol.com (rly-yb05.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.5]) by air-yb04.mail.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:40:32 -0500 Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (darkwing.uoregon.edu [128.223.142.13]) by rly-yb05.mx.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:40:16 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA25607 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:39:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25564 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:39:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23261; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:39:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA31173; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:39:21 -0800 From: Steve VanDevender MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14462.17927.195722.244752@tzadkiel.efn.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:39:19 -0800 (PST) To: Connor Cc: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: starship-design: Linear EMP motor (name needs work) In-Reply-To: <200001132122.QAA31809@boo-mda02.boo.net> References: <200001132122.QAA31809@boo-mda02.boo.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender >> From VM Thu Jan 13 15:57:46 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7463" "Thursday" "13" "January" "2000" "18:40:1" "-0500" "Connor" "chithree@boo.net" nil "107" "Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7463 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA22794 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:43:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from boo-mda02.boo.net (boo-mda02.boo.net [151.200.206.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA22789 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:43:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-boonet2-29.boo.net [208.184.99.29]) by boo-mda02.boo.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA06813; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:58:18 -0500 Message-Id: <200001132358.SAA06813@boo-mda02.boo.net> Organization: saint|ogden productions X-mailer: FoxMail 3.0 beta 1 [eg] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_Dragon283486312384_=====" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Connor From: Connor Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Timothy van der Linden , "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:40:1 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=====_Dragon283486312384_===== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit if I attach an image will the listserv filter it out? Oh well, I'm attaching anyway. --=====_Dragon283486312384_===== Content-Type: image/gif; name="casbaln.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="casbaln.gif" R0lGODlh8QBzAfcAAP//////zP//mf//Zv//M///AP/M///MzP/Mmf/MZv/MM//MAP+Z//+ZzP+Z mf+ZZv+ZM/+ZAP9m//9mzP9mmf9mZv9mM/9mAP8z//8zzP8zmf8zZv8zM/8zAP8A//8AzP8Amf8A Zv8AM/8AAMz//8z/zMz/mcz/Zsz/M8z/AMzM/8zMzMzMmczMZszMM8zMAMyZ/8yZzMyZmcyZZsyZ M8yZAMxm/8xmzMxmmcxmZsxmM8xmAMwz/8wzzMwzmcwzZswzM8wzAMwA/8wAzMwAmcwAZswAM8wA AJn//5n/zJn/mZn/Zpn/M5n/AJnM/5nMzJnMmZnMZpnMM5nMAJmZ/5mZzJmZmZmZZpmZM5mZAJlm /5lmzJlmmZlmZplmM5lmAJkz/5kzzJkzmZkzZpkzM5kzAJkA/5kAzJkAmZkAZpkAM5kAAGb//2b/ zGb/mWb/Zmb/M2b/AGbM/2bMzGbMmWbMZmbMM2bMAGaZ/2aZzGaZmWaZZmaZM2aZAGZm/2ZmzGZm mWZmZmZmM2ZmAGYz/2YzzGYzmWYzZmYzM2YzAGYA/2YAzGYAmWYAZmYAM2YAADP//zP/zDP/mTP/ ZjP/MzP/ADPM/zPMzDPMmTPMZjPMMzPMADOZ/zOZzDOZmTOZZjOZMzOZADNm/zNmzDNmmTNmZjNm MzNmADMz/zMzzDMzmTMzZjMzMzMzADMA/zMAzDMAmTMAZjMAMzMAAAD//wD/zAD/mQD/ZgD/MwD/ AADM/wDMzADMmQDMZgDMMwDMAACZ/wCZzACZmQCZZgCZMwCZAABm/wBmzABmmQBmZgBmMwBmAAAz /wAzzAAzmQAzZgAzMwAzAAAA/wAAzAAAmQAAZgAAMwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACwAAAAA8QBzAQAI/wABCBxI sKDBgwgTKlzIsKHDhxAjSpxIsaLFixgzatzIsaPHjyBDihxJsqTJkyhTqlzJsqXLlzBjypxJs6bN mzhz6tzJs6fPn0CDCh1KtKjRo0iTKl3KtKnTp1CjSp1KtarQJ8iyat3KVesTqUdkWG25oqvZs2hX MD0yNmVZs3ko5jmr1ugRIG1Lzun6tSNWrnOIss0b8q9WPSb1cO3rE8hgwh0XszSc1edjyBnfZkUc U7HWujgPXMZckTIJmyS2Mq4ZlrRFyjxV2xzt+qFmT0A9fZ55hHZthluJBo/p+3fC4UaRs3RsvKFh pl5bFm9OUGvgpnsrqxRNPeHzqNFRtv/ubjC81O8mpzfX2pZ9yd7kCc5FFjfv/Poi1dd2j5n/R+bx AeBff9p9pB9pmzXn2UfckfcXaMa9tVpG41E3X4AC0sfRgXnphgyGAmWFG4UcjjVggCdOVKJVKaJY IEUAGtcihjM2tCJVNdL4IkQN/pYjiD8eVKFrHoLYkIgS3RhVkUYeicyIDsFXW3ZNPpTVdTb+9laV EGUFYUIxIvghl12OuZCST+1IppML9UjghGsy9JdCR+TgGpJxRsSkkK5dmKdEWeFHkJQE/kmRmgCg CZ2ZhgLKKABh5pUVnI06NOdAiiq1YKWHIsOZm5I+ymlE2tVZ6KgWVZYpUgmiWpFnqxr/taWrqSLz JYui0hpRDohOFaiuFh3hp1Wp5QqsQ9xldRqux1ZkaoZW6QZlsxE9Jm1VvVJ75mXZLqWstkkWVOx5 3YJ7UA60TQqeseYmdMQBB5VblG6ctRslQopN6y279hr0bLz8CocMpf3y6Z28QSFcMKEIKeyTw/1y CLFO4xbMELpOLnvUxO2+6xDHNqkAMrgrZqXCxgFbLNBdZRolcsoqK2lyUSNry/DHMN9Uscp0TvSt UDVTi7HPOdcUdLMeEw100QvXmjDT9rJc0dEpkTIwz2dehBUpP1EN7M1K97RXvVgbfJFiWOrkta4y xFod1CytTWvSGMkdkt2uul0Q3h7x/82p1Br5vZFiBJedqF+e5vTL4ow37vgvED0u+eSULx5R5ZhL Hnnmj/tbHOeUC54R6JY/RPrpkG+OOuWqn+5vQqs3LvpFs0OWSioVtQ1S7Z0C+8ftf1BEd2Rwk1SW vqPiDoDy4YKk260v8d7W7QJRXy1edxcvkvRjMb9889nThJWgyXtvfZR6LzRX4Spxb5X31UOUPnDa f+Q+ValoYRAV8CekO0n3U8j4aKWC/lWPCjaCF0nWF5MASiUVJ0OIAV9nEgcCjFaAmGD1NLgy7JXE ggU5Hq1UwRAOHu4kz4te/ciTChIu5HyeSwkIBzLDpphwIBqcX8tcUsOlwFAh/DvI//9QUkPd0OqG BEkFAgsyvJM8qSU9VIoSI9I/HZJqhbTDonFigMSCwBBwMtQiRcpCPkN10SDes2JE5gI9AIqxNoU4 oxeVF6kwriSKSJEjGlemwju+kTQ/jMgfYBGDNfQxJVhhH5f0eJBUKNAliUxJ7CZJutZRspIKgeEl MekQ1EELJZsMpeZMJ0rQvbAgpcScJTP3SSf+ESIRzOMSlXK/sqTNJL+LJUgCmUk9BpEpe2mj/YrG S4lQr5gZuR0y0bjMPTrFfQrjHyOZOZDfTbOE8WtIECHokGYKzJXdXN41N8jM4G3Eet5cHgILGM40 vXIhTyyh8saJzNvp0iLmawjzvJn/zqEYsSRYuacEcTiRAs4SIQUcJw4P+suENHR5AvViVESmyMDB 7Hz9HEgcH2LNivwOjeaU4EHZmZBUhNSdH7yoRB+SURyadCITdOFA54hQhfZEevL64RT1SU9usjSm Mi3IQ3EYUZ+u64PIcyZBhipBmyaUpQoJahIPOhCSEkQLNu3JP0WCFWFWrxCNLCFYM9LRF57UIB9V KjWTWJWyVDSL2GykBvkXUXy+FCFMRSNV80pUlzJrewHbaVjlGhJ7DjauC1WIVbPatXeWh19WPWwS GatYnXYRhjc8JmVv6ti98cuohJ0sLjEKEebx1YuRxVFnq5NUgaQ1k6JFCfBaik6q/5b0rFPZ6kcC WlJ9LvGuKmlp9U7WxdRShaIh0S1NYemSujLktDJq7egml82FpPK62GUlKbNbuk6uTnSsSyd3x0ve VV7XvJkTXa82aziOqDdXwm1vSu+WVPbKVyPK3YjIbgXc+8qkLM61yFwMYlz/wkRDfROVYA0sE7/t CLoM9uMwVxrhmTiYUa+tcAM7+yL7ahiuCfbrhxvMYSh5eMQVyW9GriZOFMsEKx5JzbJO7OKJyBhx 5KxxA98KkX/SWMeAkm7v8gfkDROvwEVu3zsrA9okS9i9Y2qyk4m4ZDNJecrzhfJUsWxHLW+ZyxWs MkjBnOWNIKq/ZJ6wl8ec5t2Juf+pbVazmT/7YzDjrVzxjbNC7pyyPOv5ghwZ5VoJQt7GobfQrjs0 ok/3TkEPWiCLTp13Ix27y1Gakm/m6Z+dtmZNDyXAa+IzFev8EWmSGluZ/qlP4og7P3dH1MY89UWU icOxcgrWscYJrZOI2z/hOtc02bUXe52nXwMbJsJm861TDVNZJyShxE7sqIzd7JVI07aNxHaxmU0R V0/EmqD+8rKJpxFv/5SRC24UtSti7hf6+crbJvc5T3w7qVIx3FVat105cjtDYATecdL3vi8C7XK7 Cm8qxkiGIyLNKvD74EKeCIw/svCGgNsjzvYVjx9yY4qfMdkdyXhUOu7ejUsEwuL/JLXIoTLxyET8 IqcF+S5RlXAQh8S4Mi8sqi5MksWmwtYmWTlKQ9xzZWp7JEJ/JodXexB8z3zaS69K0pvCc/ztvLMD tvq0y5iR/Wq9UgAGyaXHzji2KoTsaHdc62qOkbRfmiD2RqXb096691Il7gFnOh4ffRFYQKUQeJe3 nIONcocwAirtZpPzmF4RdlZ8Iod/SuKB8/LSIMPpJ0FnViPvlMkrlsW7q7xsY1sRztvw1GxfMeNh ulyK+F3yp67d3nNMeokE3ijSdONIZv+90BoT9rFfPe81mO522hDJnd6trWTy+L5SUfK9D4lbASh6 kgC8ulDtfPQXX+aX3BD5M7Xh//YHHz6YgL+acpy6SLa5+9WHyP36jHbrEevDVrcfoJdHdmkv23ni igS5SKV/+6dP2jd+HZF6yRdc6JZZBVhn0AR/sFVtEcgU8wRY4OQS9BRt5ycUJOWAEAgAttQSzecQ qtBGGxgU6BQSwURlLXF9DYF3JwgUO/VjATRDWaUCcVd4MkhQbtZlKqGDC1EF/QOEPrFP5XcSkRRc RxcRG7VU6vd0BqgRSciCwcVv3kOEPLFYPahkK2Ff5zOCQ0Fa5BdmCohxygOGQiFYNGZBZJQSNEY9 aIiCZtcRbBQ3H4h9IfcHgEeBc5iAFxh0dVZvfMiDgqcSCPhwSHd7adiHZlZ9Y/+oc3GSYR7WQ9yD VXmSCn7AiKr3EoyjCZ74iaBYB6I4iqMIBaZ4ilDwQksYIPAziXd4ENh1SgMxd7TISeMHP6GUQof0 f0/4EyXAiPBjiqQ4jKBYjJrAOHjEO2jmE3EIic5nUTExQCLRi/iEeQTRCK9HEQvnghDBQEY2jTWB efGFA42gChnoRau4Q9+4S9Q4WZfFjQWhBnhYWno1ZzMhjR/RjhuUc43UjAOhBvLYYqyHjhrhjSTm jM2leQ5xcQ5hSM9Ij8MGjTQhOP44jUaVURDURWvgkAIRgxSGQ/Knjv8VTyFnjWbYih8HUVkyfw0h hGgEdCm2fEbTWer3VHwHWxv/+C+a+EIwKZA2N5GOhYXzVlIfFzzXByoi1k0ClXi89zYhpz9uuEwZ 9VHg10RJJI4H0YScdhN4s3K5524QCW9D01vGRxAVeRyvCBGEg4iA2E3p15ETdCD9ZEBneRBYQTY2 ITee5249SZQQqZLxyJETqBAuuT821ZSPdU4l8ZWqxlLmZFyCqRBxyEtC6Vmx8Uanlmct9VqgpQaR mUmreGWVSUNpGTazFojL6JbPB5cEEZDZR5YEplCIeRBj828hwZgS+JqAqQZ2MoCwWRAeaRBo8zBa 9IZZJVzeowJ+ZwCu+ZeS9ZFX9BNWY3KGaYYhqZqldVKMsAJq4FUJ0XzId01b/wMUQVN8FoGbpylI 3rMCjdAI7IZt9dQ75LlC7LWXPqmbANAI3imLBBl+0fk0FBGcvXSdx6abh4CNA7eThCiSjdVtBLoQ fmCfSamb7gmPvzmPCgpPpYkRO+Oc3YaaEgELXCAQ7QkAAloQ2ziYOKMxAPp77GaeVigRXOCe+fmQ xgSVJspBjDSbDvEyo6aNEup7ECGPjTCirIlPGqWjV2SSM7maBYp006QGBkCjNvqj6qSi9HMUPoqf PJWOMSoRaqCfwGlTFYile5Z/KMNRclRWshWlVHqVFmGJJiRHPBoRHZpJ4jh1edYIpldVZIqGZ/Qz rJIz7+il7CgRY1COEsSkLP+pVhq6KAyxgWzKEvFVoTWVnmYKaPuiSKlZey2oR2EahcOVoP55MBtq gZm6QYZqfXqUBtVDbCc6VUqapU5BL5nKasEmR2owBq5FfIwaP50qqgSRL1CRLbwUpJjaEMyZobGa TcRHq09xKY4qTr8KpQ+xBjGQoYDposVkQuqyLiy6oPwYE/2EA80prDk6ERG6oNp6p0NHEE1okznR T58ZrNvqmAORVxxUpxxxLXBqWDuRTkDwmWB4oq2IWxrkr6o1R8hqhis5rajlpOwqrPzaETsjhPqI nXRSHCYkoP2jUw2DDOHqKwhmoih4Q9ORWdZoQK14EMNiIqf6byYERhFZWQ//kVeRZUAVCxKzkoYz K5kqq7Gt12ReQiB4WYQcNCTP2XSX5Vz7pEubcion6z9yqU/4pqPzdFA7q3tTixAcgkQnOKfENUtb SxJRi7QIUUf9aLX0x7RXmiFH+yYyGJcLCbYmhHLm+FLSKiMxa0xxBzYXWlIBlk6w8FJlS4U9kQrZ OCge+mw6im+HwAiGcLgo8bI6obj+4kEEqJSBmxBp8Csu4ogtuLh8lJ09+qwOsScuQp1dSLpKyxAV CW9dtLc6whOpYHpD1LiO67aKl299W0Kmlynpt5RIRLkv0bM3oQqcp7abe7r1qKH72R1UghOwQKWf ia8sdU83dCV/oro0UaIA/7CRHiVHqeWtJJkn3isTjRCQ16u7eKqteKJuiAmQ4au5A/kQVoV8QdIk +3sSnhm+tnlvvRqyv0tLvLeRayAWs/agfnpAAFPA+wLB4Su+Codu/vdYEhzBMkHBySQR7NQ//Yu+ eES/BmdMqRW/1GK5KwG+HezBMAS65vIgLcGnpItPDBxbEmIxraISjOB5dVkQZ1swIawRjICritkp GdweAURCe3lNQ3ws92ESjOBwTSwRUexfTywRMfB6TXzDWQwu5vERVLqX/ogeEWbGHJGoE9rCGgp6 H2YdHtGc9mlC2ZHEAYLGF7EGcuyFZ+rGOqYcFhGZc9xrmmFn5ys89mufzf8nuhoWvQxBGxKasRqm k7R3xJu2Ebm7xmx8yRTySJ6aTDfMyWDCsR72w6JMQUJqyaesIilLb6vsLL2Uj6/MygpRuPkYyrOs H7bsEaZ8ypRsEOYIhbPMEA4gl284zFHiyXAmy8i8EMzbqOWGy5xcIsjay38GuKnMls2MyvKEkNuM KSvSsJIcM755y988KL0ptB1hzWSGlGDpzc1sle8szM38zH4Jz8OMJuMKyt+MzQgRA6a2qhLBzlOm JMq0zwGMzP7cVAc9jfK6yorS0B+RUMokzUn2yzwlzgct0FPmzhn9Y6ZmoVwmzx9tkQ17X2OZmyBh TeOsK25z0vsI0S+dmTAubTh6U9P3uWkLXRM4zTNqZH2ijNGXy8kefc5GfdRIndRKvdRM3dRO/dRQ fRMBAQA7 --=====_Dragon283486312384_=====-- From VM Thu Jan 13 16:21:21 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1938" "Thursday" "13" "January" "2000" "16:07:09" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "34" "Re: starship-design: Linear EMP motor (name needs work)" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1938 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14432 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:07:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14413 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:07:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA04390 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:07:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA31987; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:07:12 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14462.26797.146306.423260@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Linear EMP motor (name needs work) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:07:09 -0800 (PST) STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > Basically, there is no way to induce motion that violates conservation > of momentum; if something moves one way, something else has to move the > other. > > :Not nessasarily. Attach a board to the tops of two five gallon buckets open > side :down. Stand on board and move body forward rapidly without moving feet > along a :ine parallel with the bucket centers. You will find you can walk > across the concrete :floor inch by inch with each motion. Conservation of > momentum is maintained but :your conclusion is proven false. Mass times > velocity one way = mass times velocity :the other way in rockets. In particle > accelerators E= 1/2Mass times velocity so :does not have the counter force. > That is why the energy in the rapid motion :translates to forward motion of > the man an buckets. Rockets and Particle :accelerators have different max > velocities as different equations are used..... You must have been a source of great amusement in your physics classes. Your example of sliding boards along the floor is just as required to follow conservation of momentum as rockets are; it's a fundamental property of everything in the universe to conserve momentum. You're just getting confused because there's friction and a very large countermass involved. All that's happening when you slide the boards along the floor is that you shift yourself slowly in one direction and quickly in the other, such that you move quickly enough to overcome the friction holding the boards against the floor for short periods. And every time you slide a little one way, the whole Earth slides a very tiny bit the other, exactly so that momentum remains conserved. Both rockets and particles in a particle accelerator have the same limit velocity -- c. I don't know which equations you're specifically referring to but p = m * v / (sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) for every mass in the universe. From VM Thu Jan 13 17:50:14 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["256" "Friday" "14" "January" "2000" "02:45:57" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "8" "Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 256 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA28577 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:46:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp7.xs4all.nl (smtp7.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.50]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA28571 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:46:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from - (dc2-isdn1697.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.154.161]) by smtp7.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA04915 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 02:46:18 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000114024557.00703340@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <200001132358.SAA06813@boo-mda02.boo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 02:45:57 +0100 Hi again Connor, Your drawing does not answer my questions regarding the importance of the phospor layer. Where is it the layer, and what is its effect on both the beams coming in through the back hole and on beams coming from another direction? Timothy From VM Fri Jan 14 10:08:52 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3413" "Thursday" "13" "January" "2000" "20:51:13" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "76" "RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3413 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA20604 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:53:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA20596 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:53:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p449.gnt.com [204.49.91.65]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id UAA09782 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 20:53:05 -0600 Message-ID: <006301bf5e3a$79f9a060$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <200001132007.VAA13739@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 20:51:13 -0600 > > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Jan 13 > 20:05:32 2000 > > From: "N. Lindberg" > > > > I have a question about the 'phosphor' inside the balloon, and > > about phosphorescent materiels in general. > > > As far as I know: > > > Apparently, a phosphor absorbs > > a high-energy photon, and re-emits low energy photons. > > > Sometimes other way around, but rarely. > Also, there is phosphorescence and luminescence. > The difference is in the delay between absorbing > (some energy, e.g., a photon) and emitting a photon. > Phosphorescent materials have long delay (even days), > so they shine long after the excitation ended > (e.g., materials glowing in the dark) while luminescent > materials stop to radiate almost immediately after > the excitation stopped. First, lets straighten out the terminology... "Luminescence" is an emission of light such as "fluorescence" or "phosphorescence" which is not directly attributable to heat as is for instance "incandescence". "Fluorescence" is the property possessed by some materials of absorbing radiation at a _particular_ wavelength and then emitting it as _white_ light while the stimulus, the radiation source, is still active. Fluorescence is distinct from "phosphorescence" which merely means the emission of light without any perceptible heat. Phosphorescence may be caused by many different stimuli such as chemical reactions or radiation. Luminescence includes both of these phenomena and fluorescence may include phosphorescence or may not. [CLIP] > > What is the typical energy difference/proportion between > > absorbed & emitted light. > > > Ehem, what means "typical" here? > There is the whole range o proportions, byt of course, > always there is less energy emitted than absorbed > (usually much less - the efficiency of the process is rather low). > > > Finally, is any energy left over? > > > Yes, usually a significant percentage (as stated above). > The sources of loss: > - not all exciting photons are absorbed (some go through, > some are reflected); > - still some incoming photons are absorbed in other ways > (eg., in inner electron layers) and are converted to heat; > - the emitted photons are of lower energy (longer wavelength), > or - where it does not apply - are of lower energy than the sum > of energies of those photons which were used in the process > of generating them; > - falling down of electrons not always occurs along the standard > route, so that they may emit other photons than desired - often > those that are then easily (re)absorbed and converted to heat; > - the "desired" photons may get absorbed and converted to other ones > or to heat before they manage to leave the material. As the question is stated, yes there may be a difference between "absorbed radiation" and "emitted light". However, there is never any difference in the energy of the system, as in "left over energy". Energy is always conserved. Some may be converted to other forms of energy besides "light" but all the energy absorbed by the material is eventually emitted in some form. I suppose you could say that in an extreme case, say a particle accelerator, you could theoretically insert enough energy to permanently raise the energy of the material, by transmuting it into a different material. But the total energy of the system still remains the same even then. Lee From VM Fri Jan 14 10:08:52 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4663" "Friday" "14" "January" "2000" "15:10:02" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "101" "RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4663 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA19949 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 06:10:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA19927 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 06:10:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA14367 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:10:02 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200001141410.PAA14367@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:10:02 +0100 (MET) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 14 04:00:37 2000 > From: "L. Parker" > > > > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Jan 13 20:05:32 2000 > > > From: "N. Lindberg" > > > > > > I have a question about the 'phosphor' inside the balloon, and > > > about phosphorescent materiels in general. > > > > > As far as I know: > > > > > Apparently, a phosphor absorbs > > > a high-energy photon, and re-emits low energy photons. > > > > > Sometimes other way around, but rarely. > > Also, there is phosphorescence and luminescence. > > The difference is in the delay between absorbing > > (some energy, e.g., a photon) and emitting a photon. > > Phosphorescent materials have long delay (even days), > > so they shine long after the excitation ended > > (e.g., materials glowing in the dark) while luminescent > > materials stop to radiate almost immediately after > > the excitation stopped. > > First, lets straighten out the terminology... > I would like to thank you for correcting my terminology, but... > "Luminescence" is an emission of light such as "fluorescence" or > "phosphorescence" which is not directly attributable to heat as is for > instance "incandescence". "Fluorescence" is the property possessed by some > materials of absorbing radiation at a _particular_ wavelength and then > emitting it as _white_ light > ? Usually fairly monochromatic or with few narrow frequency bands; to obtain white (as in fluorescent white light tubes) a special mixtures of different materials emitting at different bands must be used. > while the stimulus, the radiation source, is > still active. Fluorescence is distinct from "phosphorescence" which merely > means the emission of light without any perceptible heat. Phosphorescence > may be caused by many different stimuli such as chemical reactions or > radiation. Luminescence includes both of these phenomena and fluorescence > may include phosphorescence or may not. > ... your explanation confuses me even more... Certainly, it seems to be that in English the terminology in this area goes differently than in Polish, hence my confusion... Anyway, this is not very important in this particular case, so let us drop it for a while. > [CLIP] > > > > What is the typical energy difference/proportion between > > > absorbed & emitted light. > > > > > Ehem, what means "typical" here? > > There is the whole range o proportions, byt of course, > > always there is less energy emitted than absorbed > > (usually much less - the efficiency of the process is rather low). > > > > > Finally, is any energy left over? > > > > > Yes, usually a significant percentage (as stated above). > > The sources of loss: > > - not all exciting photons are absorbed (some go through, > > some are reflected); > > - still some incoming photons are absorbed in other ways > > (eg., in inner electron layers) and are converted to heat; > > - the emitted photons are of lower energy (longer wavelength), > > or - where it does not apply - are of lower energy than the sum > > of energies of those photons which were used in the process > > of generating them; > > - falling down of electrons not always occurs along the standard > > route, so that they may emit other photons than desired - often > > those that are then easily (re)absorbed and converted to heat; > > - the "desired" photons may get absorbed and converted to other ones > > or to heat before they manage to leave the material. > > As the question is stated, yes there may be a difference between "absorbed > radiation" and "emitted light". However, there is never any difference in > the energy of the system, as in "left over energy". Energy is always > conserved. Some may be converted to other forms of energy besides "light" > but all the energy absorbed by the material is eventually emitted in some > form. > > I suppose you could say that in an extreme case, say a particle accelerator, > you could theoretically insert enough energy to permanently raise the energy > of the material, by transmuting it into a different material. But the total > energy of the system still remains the same even then. > Of cource it is all true - what I called "loss of energy" refers only to the difference beween total energu of the stimulating radiation and the total energy of "usable" output radiation - i.e., that of the light of fluorescence (which is usually either fairly monochromatic or contains only a few narrow bands of wavelengths). The rest is of course emitted sooner or later in some form (or stored in the material in some way). -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Fri Jan 14 10:08:52 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["947" "Friday" "14" "January" "2000" "15:18:08" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "21" "Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 947 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA20448 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 06:18:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA20428 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 06:18:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA14384 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:18:08 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200001141418.PAA14384@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:18:08 +0100 (MET) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 14 02:50:23 2000 > Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 02:45:57 +0100 > > Your drawing does not answer my questions regarding the importance of the > phospor layer. Where is it the layer, and what is its effect on both the > beams coming in through the back hole and on beams coming from another > direction? > Let me shortly explain the idea as I understand it: the "balloon" is wrapped up (except the hole in the end) in the mesh that is transparent to frequency f1, but opaque for (or reflecting) the frequency f2. Hence, all incoming radiation at f1 goes inside, from whichever direction it comes. Inside we have the muffler-like layers of "phosphor" material which transmutes photon frequency from f1 to f2. Since the mesh wrapping is not transparent to f2, that frequency photons can leave the "balloon" only through the hole at the end, giving it the reactive push forward. -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Sun Jan 16 17:20:49 2000 Content-Length: 880 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["880" "Saturday" "15" "January" "2000" "07:19:01" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "19" "RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 880 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA06603 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 05:20:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA06598 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 05:20:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p461.gnt.com [204.49.91.77]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA18598; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 07:19:52 -0600 Message-ID: <008101bf5f5b$34a22f10$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <200001141418.PAA14384@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Zenon Kulpa'" , Subject: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 07:19:01 -0600 > Let me shortly explain the idea as I understand it: > the "balloon" is wrapped up (except the hole in the end) > in the mesh that is transparent to frequency f1, but opaque for > (or reflecting) the frequency f2. > Hence, all incoming radiation at f1 goes inside, > from whichever direction it comes. > Inside we have the muffler-like layers of "phosphor" material > which transmutes photon frequency from f1 to f2. > Since the mesh wrapping is not transparent to f2, > that frequency photons can leave the "balloon" only > through the hole at the end, giving it the reactive push forward. > If I understand correctly what he is trying to do, the phophor is unnecessary. The interior only needs to be a "black body" as far as frequency f1 is concerned, this can be accomplished without phophor. I can see how it might indeed provide thrust, but it would be terribly weak. Lee From VM Sun Jan 16 17:20:49 2000 Content-Length: 1004 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1004" "Saturday" "15" "January" "2000" "12:33:32" "-0500" "Connor" "chithree@boo.net" nil "19" "Re: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1004 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA09523 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 09:35:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from boo-mda02.boo.net (IDENT:root@boo-mda02.boo.net [151.200.206.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA09516 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 09:35:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-boonet2-95.boo.net [208.184.99.95]) by boo-mda02.boo.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA09076 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:50:24 -0500 Message-Id: <200001151750.MAA09076@boo-mda02.boo.net> Organization: saint|ogden productions X-mailer: FoxMail 3.0 beta 1 [eg] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Connor From: Connor Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:33:32 -0500 I don't like the term weak, I like gradual. Like ion drive. It could get going pretty fast, and with no fuel you could just go iinto stasis and wait for the balloon to kick in. And the phosphor makes it so that there is more of the f2 radiation in the ballon than out of it. I'm trying to deal with fairly specific frequencies. On another unrelated propulsion topic, a physicist friend of mine was telling me about virtual particles (a particle and an anti particle are constantly popping into existence and annihilating eachother, so to conserve matter another two pop in, and so on. At any given time there are virtual particles all around, appearing and dissapearing. I was wondering how theoretical this is, if you guys buy it (or have heard of it), and how it could be applied to propulsion. I think the startrek ships fly with matter-antimatter reactions. Could they just bussard the matter/antimatter out of space and let them go off in a combustion chamber? Connor chithree@boo.net From VM Sun Jan 16 17:20:49 2000 Content-Length: 956 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["956" "Saturday" "15" "January" "2000" "18:05:43" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "22" "Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 956 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14615 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:01:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA14610 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:01:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin59.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.59]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA28822; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 11:00:57 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <3880B6F7.B6B7A301@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <200001151750.MAA09076@boo-mda02.boo.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Connor CC: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 18:05:43 +0000 Connor wrote: > > I was wondering how theoretical this is, if you guys buy it (or have heard of it), and how > it could be applied to propulsion. I think the startrek ships fly with matter-antimatter > reactions. Could they just bussard the matter/antimatter out of space and let them go > off in a combustion chamber? > Handling antimatter - antiprotons is real easy , any one with a bit of grant money and good motor skills could build a bottle. Getting anti-matter that is very hard, it is not like they sell it at the intergalatic 7-11. Check out http://antimatter.phys.psu.edu/Index.html for real one going development in this field. Ben. "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Where a calculator like the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1 1/2 tons." Popular Mechanics, March 1949 From VM Sun Jan 16 17:20:50 2000 Content-Length: 1406 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1406" "Saturday" "15" "January" "2000" "12:44:47" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "25" "Re: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1406 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18759 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:44:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18754 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:44:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11519 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:44:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA32151; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:44:52 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14464.56383.738053.104158@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <200001151750.MAA09076@boo-mda02.boo.net> References: <200001151750.MAA09076@boo-mda02.boo.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:44:47 -0800 (PST) Connor writes: > On another unrelated propulsion topic, a physicist friend of mine was > telling me about virtual particles (a particle and an anti particle > are constantly popping into existence and annihilating eachother, so > to conserve matter another two pop in, and so on. At any given time > there are virtual particles all around, appearing and dissapearing. > > I was wondering how theoretical this is, if you guys buy it (or have > heard of it), and how it could be applied to propulsion. I think the > startrek ships fly with matter-antimatter reactions. Could they just > bussard the matter/antimatter out of space and let them go off in a > combustion chamber? Virtual particles are pretty well accepted in quantum mechanics, but their fundamental property is that their energy is borrowed from the vacuum and has to be given back. A virtual particle either has to disappear shortly after its formation or something else has to give up energy for the virtual particle to remain in existence. A lot of the talk about "zero point energy" is essentially the idea of somehow permanently extracting energy from the vacuum; in theory for various kinds of quantum effects to happen, there has to be a pretty deep pool of energy in the vacuum for them to temporarily borrow from. Whether it's really possible to permanently take energy from the vacuum is still a big question, though. From VM Sun Jan 16 17:20:50 2000 Content-Length: 1070 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1070" "Saturday" "15" "January" "2000" "16:09:59" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "31" "Re: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1070 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA25053 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 13:11:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25041 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 13:11:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 8.1b.5fe26f (4312); Sat, 15 Jan 2000 16:09:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1b.5fe26f.25b23c27@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: chithree@boo.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 16:09:59 EST In a message dated 1/15/00 11:37:46 AM, chithree@boo.net writes: >On another unrelated propulsion topic, a physicist friend of mine was telling >me about >virtual particles (a particle and an anti particle are constantly popping >into existence >and annihilating eachother, so to conserve matter another two pop in, and >so on. At >any given time there are virtual particles all around, appearing and dissapearing. > >I was wondering how theoretical this is, if you guys buy it (or have heard >of it), and how >it could be applied to propulsion. I think the startrek ships fly with >matter-antimatter >reactions. Could they just bussard the matter/antimatter out of space and >let them go >off in a combustion chamber? > > >Connor Its been thought that you might be able to tap into those virtual particals, or zero point energy. It would be way beyond anti-mater/mater reactions in efficency. Power without carrying and fuel and at fantastic power densities. If we could tap that our interstellar flight concepts would be radically somplified. Kelly From VM Sun Jan 16 17:20:50 2000 Content-Length: 1799 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1799" "Sunday" "16" "January" "2000" "08:34:15" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "41" "RE: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1799 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA06661 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 06:36:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA06656 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 06:36:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p454.gnt.com [204.49.91.70]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA30804; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 08:36:39 -0600 Message-ID: <000701bf602f$148197f0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <14464.56383.738053.104158@tzadkiel.efn.org> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Steve VanDevender'" , Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 08:34:15 -0600 > Connor writes: > > On another unrelated propulsion topic, a physicist friend > of mine was > > telling me about virtual particles (a particle and an anti particle > > are constantly popping into existence and annihilating > eachother, so > > to conserve matter another two pop in, and so on. At any given time > > there are virtual particles all around, appearing and dissapearing. > > > > I was wondering how theoretical this is, if you guys buy > it (or have > > heard of it), and how it could be applied to propulsion. I > think the > > startrek ships fly with matter-antimatter reactions. Could > they just > > bussard the matter/antimatter out of space and let them go off in a > > combustion chamber? > > Steve writes: > Virtual particles are pretty well accepted in quantum mechanics, but > their fundamental property is that their energy is borrowed from the > vacuum and has to be given back. A virtual particle either has to > disappear shortly after its formation or something else has to give up > energy for the virtual particle to remain in existence. > > A lot of the talk about "zero point energy" is essentially the idea of > somehow permanently extracting energy from the vacuum; in theory for > various kinds of quantum effects to happen, there has to be a pretty > deep pool of energy in the vacuum for them to temporarily borrow from. > Whether it's really possible to permanently take energy from > the vacuum > is still a big question, though. The pool of energy is so large that if we do manage to tap it we had best be VERY careful. The "accidental" release of the energy contained in only a few cubic centimeters would vaporize a planet... Maybe this is one of those children with matches things. We should leave it alone until we are older and wiser! Lee From VM Sun Jan 16 17:20:50 2000 Content-Length: 897 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["897" "Sunday" "16" "January" "2000" "20:08:15" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "23" "Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 897 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA25344 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:03:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA25339 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:03:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin49.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.49]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA17273 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 13:03:41 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <3882252F.13768770@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000701bf602f$148197f0$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 20:08:15 +0000 "L. Parker" wrote: > > The pool of energy is so large that if we do manage to tap it we had best be > VERY careful. The "accidental" release of the energy contained in only a few > cubic centimeters would vaporize a planet... > > Maybe this is one of those children with matches things. We should leave it > alone until we are older and wiser! > > Lee I see Zero-point energy as the grease the keeps the universe moving. Tap that and the unverse will stop moving. :) Check out January's Scientific Americian for a good blurb on zero-point energy, negitive energy and space warps. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Where a calculator like the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1 1/2 tons." Popular Mechanics, March 1949 From VM Sun Jan 16 17:20:50 2000 Content-Length: 2386 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2386" "Sunday" "16" "January" "2000" "17:28:25" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "61" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2386 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA00883 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 14:29:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00876 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 14:29:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 4.9.fe056f (4340); Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:28:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9.fe056f.25b3a009@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, stevev@efn.org, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:28:25 EST In a message dated 1/16/00 8:40:37 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> Connor writes: >> > On another unrelated propulsion topic, a physicist friend >> of mine was >> > telling me about virtual particles (a particle and an anti particle >> > are constantly popping into existence and annihilating >> eachother, so >> > to conserve matter another two pop in, and so on. At any given time >> > there are virtual particles all around, appearing and dissapearing. >> > >> > I was wondering how theoretical this is, if you guys buy >> it (or have >> > heard of it), and how it could be applied to propulsion. I >> think the >> > startrek ships fly with matter-antimatter reactions. Could >> they just >> > bussard the matter/antimatter out of space and let them go off in >a >> > combustion chamber? >> >> Steve writes: >> Virtual particles are pretty well accepted in quantum mechanics, but >> their fundamental property is that their energy is borrowed from the >> vacuum and has to be given back. A virtual particle either has to >> disappear shortly after its formation or something else has to give up >> energy for the virtual particle to remain in existence. >> >> A lot of the talk about "zero point energy" is essentially the idea of >> somehow permanently extracting energy from the vacuum; in theory for >> various kinds of quantum effects to happen, there has to be a pretty >> deep pool of energy in the vacuum for them to temporarily borrow from. >> Whether it's really possible to permanently take energy from >> the vacuum >> is still a big question, though. > >The pool of energy is so large that if we do manage to tap it we had best >be >VERY careful. The "accidental" release of the energy contained in only >a few >cubic centimeters would vaporize a planet... > >Maybe this is one of those children with matches things. We should leave >it >alone until we are older and wiser! > >Lee You could say the same thing about matches, course you never get wiser until you try. One idea I heard was that virtual partical ALMOST always ae reabsorbed, but sometimes they separte out which can cause new mass creation in the universe. Maybe we can artificially up the odds to get the fuel we want. One things for sure. Unless we can come up with some exotic trick like that. Were not going to be doing much starflight. Not even to nearby stars. Kelly From VM Sun Jan 16 17:20:50 2000 Content-Length: 998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["998" "Sunday" "16" "January" "2000" "23:51:56" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "26" "starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA06211 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 14:53:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp7.xs4all.nl (smtp7.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.50]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA06202 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 14:53:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from - (dc2-isdn1108.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.152.84]) by smtp7.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA20559 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 23:53:29 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000116235156.006c8530@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <200001141418.PAA14384@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 23:51:56 +0100 Hello Connor, Zenon thank you for giving a clear description, answering my initial questions. Connor I assume you agree with it, since you have not commented negatively. >Let me shortly explain the idea as I understand it: >the "balloon" is wrapped up (except the hole in the end) >in the mesh that is transparent to frequency f1, but opaque for >(or reflecting) the frequency f2. >Hence, all incoming radiation at f1 goes inside, >from whichever direction it comes. >Inside we have the muffler-like layers of "phosphor" material >which transmutes photon frequency from f1 to f2. >Since the mesh wrapping is not transparent to f2, >that frequency photons can leave the "balloon" only >through the hole at the end, giving it the reactive push forward. Connor, can you tell me exactly all points where the "momentum is transferred" or "the force is applied" or "the energy is exchanged" from the photons to the ship? Thus where do the photons or where does the beam push or pull? Timothy From VM Sun Jan 16 17:20:50 2000 Content-Length: 181 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["181" "Sunday" "16" "January" "2000" "17:09:25" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "9" "RE: RE: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 181 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA11493 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 15:17:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA11482 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 15:17:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p458.gnt.com [204.49.91.74]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA27038; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:17:15 -0600 Message-ID: <001d01bf6077$d1f01490$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <9.fe056f.25b3a009@aol.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , , Subject: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:09:25 -0600 > > You could say the same thing about matches, course you never > get wiser until > you try. That is the problem with experience...its what you get just after you needed it! Lee From VM Sun Jan 16 17:20:50 2000 Content-Length: 445 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["445" "Sunday" "16" "January" "2000" "17:16:13" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "14" "RE: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 445 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA11505 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 15:17:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA11494 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 15:17:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p458.gnt.com [204.49.91.74]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA27060; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:17:20 -0600 Message-ID: <001f01bf6077$d51ac7a0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <1b.5fe26f.25b23c27@aol.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , , Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:16:13 -0600 > Its been thought that you might be able to tap into those > virtual particals, > or zero point energy. It would be way beyond > anti-mater/mater reactions in > efficency. Power without carrying and fuel and at fantastic > power densities. > If we could tap that our interstellar flight concepts would > be radically > somplified. True, but power does not equate to reaction mass, we still need a drive that doesn't require fuel also. Lee From VM Sun Jan 16 17:20:50 2000 Content-Length: 1580 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1580" "Sunday" "16" "January" "2000" "17:33:01" "-0600" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "31" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1580 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA15013 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 15:37:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh105.infi.net (fh105.infi.net [209.97.16.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA15006 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 15:37:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer (PSGLB105-38.splitrock.net [209.252.103.189]) by fh105.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA11660 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 18:37:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200001162337.SAA11660@fh105.infi.net> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:33:01 -0600 > That is the problem with experience...its what you get just after you needed > it! Suggestion: Perform these experiments a long way away, like beyond the orbit of Pluto. Don't look directly in the vicinity of the station when you do the test (or for however long it takes light to get here from there) :) Seriously, there was something proposed by Robert Forward, I believe, about using variably separated charged conductors to tap mechanical energy from the zero-point field. I don't see how it would work though...it sounded to simple. I don't think anyone can claim to know how to go about getting energy from the vacuum. The way I see it, there are two groups of people who are doing anything about this: The establishment, who doesn't like anything that disagrees with commonly accepted physical principles, (I.E., Robert Park), and the Nutcases who don't do real science, (I.E. heck, too many to name!!). In other words, those of us who want to do real science are screwed. Dr. Forward is probably one of the few who is open minded, and also a good scientist. Believe me, I know how messed up the state of affairs is, as I almost got lured in completely by the pseudoscientists. I'm proud to say I got out of that mess. Opinion: interstellar travel is impossible with today's technology. Somebody has either got to figure out a way to build an extremely exotic engine, preferably one that uses little to no reaction mass to operate, or a sail-type vehicle that can work. We can't do much with the former, but we can probably work on the latter. --Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Sun Jan 16 17:20:50 2000 Content-Length: 145 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["145" "Sunday" "16" "January" "2000" "18:05:54" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "4" "RE: RE: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 145 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA21928 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 16:06:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA21922 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 16:06:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p458.gnt.com [204.49.91.74]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA01116 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 18:06:11 -0600 Message-ID: <002401bf607e$a74e8530$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <200001162337.SAA11660@fh105.infi.net> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 18:05:54 -0600 Anybody have a subscription to Physics Review Letters? There is a journal article on their site dealing with focusing virtual particles.... Lee From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["438" "Sunday" "16" "January" "2000" "22:4:47" "-0500" "Connor" "chithree@boo.net" nil "11" "Re: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 438 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04813 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:07:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from boo-mda02.boo.net (IDENT:root@boo-mda02.boo.net [151.200.206.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA04808 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:07:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-boonet2-68.boo.net [208.184.99.68]) by boo-mda02.boo.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA19854; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 22:21:51 -0500 Message-Id: <200001170321.WAA19854@boo-mda02.boo.net> Organization: saint|ogden productions X-mailer: FoxMail 3.0 beta 1 [eg] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Connor From: Connor Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" , "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 22:4:47 -0500 > Opinion: interstellar travel is impossible with today's technology. > Somebody has either got to figure out a way to build an extremely exotic > engine, preferably one that uses little to no reaction mass to operate, or > a sail-type vehicle that can work. We can't do much with the former, but we > can probably work on the latter. Damn it, then why am I even on this list?? You just ruined it for everyone. Connor chithree@boo.net From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["336" "Sunday" "16" "January" "2000" "22:8:24" "-0500" "Connor" "chithree@boo.net" nil "6" "Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 336 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA05122 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:10:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from boo-mda02.boo.net (IDENT:root@boo-mda02.boo.net [151.200.206.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA05117 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:10:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-boonet2-68.boo.net [208.184.99.68]) by boo-mda02.boo.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA19985 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 22:25:29 -0500 Message-Id: <200001170325.WAA19985@boo-mda02.boo.net> Organization: saint|ogden productions X-mailer: FoxMail 3.0 beta 1 [eg] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Connor From: Connor Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 22:8:24 -0500 i dunno. I'm not sure what you don't understand, and due to my general lack knowledge on the subject (which, by the way, you've drawn into glaring relief) I probably couldn't answer it well enough anyway. Can anyone else on the list answer his questions? If not, I think we should drop it, because my usefulness has been exhausted. From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["570" "Sunday" "16" "January" "2000" "21:11:21" "-0600" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "12" "Re: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 570 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA06705 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:15:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh105.infi.net (fh105.infi.net [209.97.16.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA06699 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:15:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer (PSGLB103-18.splitrock.net [209.252.103.66]) by fh105.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA31412 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 22:15:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200001170315.WAA31412@fh105.infi.net> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: Re: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 21:11:21 -0600 > Damn it, then why am I even on this list?? You just ruined it for everyone. Complaining will not help the issue. Have I ruined it for everyone? I don't think so. There is much more to interstellar exploration than just propulsion. As far as what we can or can't do, I'm terribly sorry, I don't make the rules. Like I said, if someone can come up with a way to make a workable sail design, it might be possible with non-exotic technology. Or if there is an efficient way to produce and store antimatter. Until then, you don't have much to go on. --Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3886" "Sunday" "16" "January" "2000" "22:18:33" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "93" "starship-design: Interstellar Exploration Ship Design" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Interstellar Exploration Ship Design" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3886 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19218 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 20:24:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA19209 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 20:24:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p445.gnt.com [204.49.91.61]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id WAA04023 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 22:24:33 -0600 Message-ID: <002901bf60a2$bdc3fdd0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002A_01BF6070.73298DD0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design (E-mail)" Subject: starship-design: Interstellar Exploration Ship Design Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 22:18:33 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01BF6070.73298DD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Untitled StationeryLong ago we were discussing crew complements and structure for an Explorer class vessel and I made the suggestion that we should perhaps look to submarines for clues on the endurance of such a crew and to aircraft carriers for the rest. We all agreed that even though these weren't terribly good analogies, it seems these are the closest we have. After watching a program last month on carrier battle group operations, I think our problem is even worse than I thought. Although I knew that in many ways a carrier was self-sufficient, it seems that in many others it is not. I was not aware of just how much resupply goes on at sea. An aircraft carrier, for all its size leaves port stuffed to the bulkheads with consumable supplies which _get this_ all have to be replaced while underway! We are talking a six month deployment here...not six years or even sixty years. I am beginning to have serious doubts about slow ships (0.3c or less). I no longer believe it is possible to stuff enough food onboard for an Explorer class vessel. So we are back to growing it enroute. Or a MUCH faster vessel. Warp Drive When? Lee ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01BF6070.73298DD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Untitled Stationery
Long = ago we were=20 discussing crew complements and structure for an Explorer class vessel = and I=20 made the suggestion that we should perhaps look to submarines for clues = on the=20 endurance of such a crew and to aircraft carriers for the rest. We all = agreed=20 that even though these weren't terribly good analogies, it seems these = are the=20 closest we have.
 
After = watching a=20 program last month on carrier battle group operations, I think our = problem is=20 even worse than I thought. Although I knew that in many ways a carrier = was=20 self-sufficient, it seems that in many others it is not. I was not aware = of just=20 how much resupply goes on at sea. An aircraft carrier, for all its size = leaves=20 port stuffed to the bulkheads with consumable supplies which _get this_ = all have=20 to be replaced while underway!
 
We are = talking a six=20 month deployment here...not six years or even sixty years. I am = beginning to=20 have serious doubts about slow ships (0.3c or less). I no longer believe = it is=20 possible to stuff enough food onboard for an Explorer class vessel. So = we are=20 back to growing it enroute. Or a MUCH faster vessel.
 
Warp = Drive=20 When?
 
Lee
------=_NextPart_000_002A_01BF6070.73298DD0-- From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2561" "Monday" "17" "January" "2000" "04:30:17" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "63" "Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2561 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA20164 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 20:25:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA20159 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 20:25:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin33.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.33]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA10367 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 21:25:39 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38829AD9.F8A03065@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <200001170321.WAA19854@boo-mda02.boo.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 04:30:17 +0000 Connor wrote: > > > Opinion: interstellar travel is impossible with today's technology. > > Somebody has either got to figure out a way to build an extremely exotic > > engine, preferably one that uses little to no reaction mass to operate, or > > a sail-type vehicle that can work. We can't do much with the former, but we > > can probably work on the latter. > > Damn it, then why am I even on this list?? You just ruined it for everyone. > > Connor > chithree@boo.net The keyword is "today's technology", who knows what things tomorrow will bring. Looking deep to the crystal ball I see ... um just tuesdays stock market quotes well never mind that. The propulsion unit while still far from development, does not prevent good work from being done. Look at the airplane, the wright brothers made it work because they developed wing lift tables, rather than perfecting motors,air frame,and other stuff while important was not as critical as the control and flight characteristics of the wings. They got the whole thing working and then improved on it. We (as a people) have not left the earth so we really have nothing to build upon, yet. Who is to say one can't have a antimatter production stations in orbit around the sun. Interplanetary craft could use the solar wind. A stable plasma bottle that can store large amounts of power. Ok the antimatter production is my idea, but the other two items have are being actively worked on. I don't expect to see a starship until the 23 century, but there is a lot of good work that needs to be done on the interplanetary and earth orbit fronts. Big governments are not the way to go, nor is space exploration. One needs to get people working and LIVING in space 24-7 days a week. Now is the time to build small complexes on the ground, and explore space on the earth. Have a simple agenda but one that has a regular use of launch craft, and a well matched payload size. I favor a two stage to orbit craft,(not yet designed) manned 1st stage to say Mach 2? Unmanned transport :Chemical fuel LOX,CH4 to mach 5? and above the atmosphere. Beamed energy for a undefined electrical engine to orbital speed. And of course a large space station, and the classic rotating ring , well octagon. Ben. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Where a calculator like the INCA is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1 1/2 tons." Popular Mechanics, March 1949 From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["862" "Monday" "17" "January" "2000" "04:45:13" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "20" "Re: starship-design: Interstellar Exploration Ship Design" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Interstellar Exploration Ship Design" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 862 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22522 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 20:40:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA22513 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 20:40:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin33.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.33]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA10949 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 21:40:35 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38829E59.5D7C553D@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <002901bf60a2$bdc3fdd0$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: "Starship-Design (E-mail)" Subject: Re: starship-design: Interstellar Exploration Ship Design Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 04:45:13 +0000 "L. Parker" wrote: > -- cut -- > > We are talking a six month deployment here...not six years or even sixty > years. I am beginning to have serious doubts about slow ships (0.3c or > less). I no longer believe it is possible to stuff enough food onboard for > an Explorer class vessel. So we are back to growing it enroute. Or a MUCH > faster vessel. Can't forget the time honored si-fi tradition of suspended animation... Wake me at beta-gama 13 and I just hope you wound your alarm clock. PS.Avoid any AI-units called windows 3000 umm HAL 9000. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Where a calculator like the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1 1/2 tons." Popular Mechanics, March 1949 From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["552" "Monday" "17" "January" "2000" "06:53:21" "-0500" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "13" "starship-design: ftl, gravity, etc." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: ftl, gravity, etc." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 552 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA19772 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 03:55:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtiwmhc09.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc09.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.18]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA19767 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 03:55:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.96.25]) by mtiwmhc09.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with ESMTP id <20000117115454.RII10531@worldnet.att.net>; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:54:54 +0000 Message-ID: <388302B1.621F32A6@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship Subject: starship-design: ftl, gravity, etc. Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 06:53:21 -0500 We'd be silly to say, at this point, that any particular type of engine can't be done. Personally, I believe (though I don't know how) that we will learn to control gravity (think of what you could do with a gravity laser, uh, stardrive engine), AND that FTL travel is possible. Think about it: there are probably people alive today who can remember when it was thought impossible to break the sound barrier. Evolutionarily speaking, we just woke up, and we really don't know what can be done. So, keep up the good work, and keep looking up. Curtis From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["998" "Monday" "17" "January" "2000" "15:20:19" "-0000" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "25" "RE: starship-design: Zero Point Energy" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Zero Point Energy" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA15626 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 07:21:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns0.sky.co.uk (mail.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.170]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA15615 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 07:21:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from ost_exch_bhs01.bskyb.com (ost_exch_bhs01 [195.153.219.190]) by ns0.sky.co.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA08880 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:17:00 GMT Received: from ost_exch_bhs01.bskyb.com (unverified) by ost_exch_bhs01.bskyb.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:20:24 +0000 Received: by OST_EXCH_BHS01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:20:23 -0000 Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" From: "Walker, Chris" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Zero Point Energy Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:20:19 -0000 > One idea I heard was that virtual partical ALMOST always ae reabsorbed, but > sometimes they separte out which can cause new mass creation in the universe. > Maybe we can artificially up the odds to get the fuel we want. > > Kelly > Is this separation you mention the same as what happens with Hawking radiation? A virtual particle pair pops into existence very close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the particles escapes and the other doesn't, thereby contributing negative energy to the black hole. So maybe one method would be to have a drive based around a singularity. I remember an episode of ST: TNG ("Timescape") which mentioned that Romulan ships are powered by artificial singularities...maybe they figured this out ;) Seriously though, if Hawking radiation means that negative energy can exist, isn't that good news for the Alcubierre drive? I suppose we just have to figure out how to create -ve energy, if indeed we ever can. Chris From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["371" "Monday" "17" "January" "2000" "09:42:45" "-0600" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "8" "Re: starship-design: ftl, gravity, etc." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: ftl, gravity, etc." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 371 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA19462 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 07:47:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh105.infi.net (fh105.infi.net [209.97.16.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA19456 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 07:47:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer (PSGLB104-10.splitrock.net [209.252.103.106]) by fh105.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA11057 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 10:46:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200001171546.KAA11057@fh105.infi.net> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: Re: starship-design: ftl, gravity, etc. Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 09:42:45 -0600 > Think about it: there are probably people alive today who can remember > when it was thought impossible to break the sound barrier. Well, no one actually said that per se...some just said that the theory said that drag went to infinity as the speed of sound approached. When the theory was generalized to the Navier-Stokes model, it worked fine. --Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["699" "Monday" "17" "January" "2000" "13:40:28" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "17" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 699 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA01391 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 10:42:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01383 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 10:42:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 8.1d.4f10dc (4006); Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:40:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1d.4f10dc.25b4bc1c@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: chithree@boo.net, stk@sunherald.infi.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:40:28 EST In a message dated 1/16/00 9:07:51 PM, chithree@boo.net writes: >> Opinion: interstellar travel is impossible with today's technology. >> Somebody has either got to figure out a way to build an extremely exotic >> engine, preferably one that uses little to no reaction mass to operate, >or >> a sail-type vehicle that can work. We can't do much with the former, >but we >> can probably work on the latter. Its not impossible. We've defined designs that could get to the closer star systems, at .4+ c, with mid 21st tech. It would be impossible to pay for with the maunfacturing equipment we have, but needing new generatins of automated consructin gear is not the same as impossible. Kelly From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1933" "Monday" "17" "January" "2000" "13:40:30" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "65" "Re: starship-design: Interstellar Exploration Ship Design" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Interstellar Exploration Ship Design" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1933 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA01331 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 10:41:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01323 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 10:41:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 4.88.389af5 (4006); Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:40:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <88.389af5.25b4bc1e@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Interstellar Exploration Ship Design Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:40:30 EST In a message dated 1/16/00 10:25:12 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >Untitled StationeryLong ago we were discussing crew complements and > >structure for an Explorer class vessel and I made the suggestion that we > >should perhaps look to submarines for clues on the endurance of such a >crew > >and to aircraft carriers for the rest. We all agreed that even though these > >weren't terribly good analogies, it seems these are the closest we have. > > > >After watching a program last month on carrier battle group operations, >I > >think our problem is even worse than I thought. Although I knew that in >many > >ways a carrier was self-sufficient, it seems that in many others it is >not. > >I was not aware of just how much resupply goes on at sea. An aircraft > >carrier, for all its size leaves port stuffed to the bulkheads with > >consumable supplies which _get this_ all have to be replaced while underway! > > > >We are talking a six month deployment here...not six years or even sixty > >years. I am beginning to have serious doubts about slow ships (0.3c or > >less). I no longer believe it is possible to stuff enough food onboard >for > >an Explorer class vessel. So we are back to growing it enroute. Or a MUCH > >faster vessel. > > > >Warp Drive When? > > > >Lee In the analysis I did on the Explorer Class, it could carry all the suplies it would need. We were assuming a thousand or so people (as I remember) and weren't volume constrianed. You could carry 25 of primary (grocery storish) food and another couple decades of dehydrated. Not having to feed 10,000 people and a hundred or so very active aircraftis a big advantage. When we get to the target system and operate fleets of explorer craft, they will start burning through spares, even with best avalible on board manufacturing gear. After a couple of years of ops those craft will be burned out, but by then its time to come home. Kelly From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1942" "Monday" "17" "January" "2000" "17:25:46" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "55" "Re: RE: starship-design: Zero Point Energy" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Zero Point Energy" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1942 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA13251 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:26:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA13245 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:26:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.52.642786 (4419); Mon, 17 Jan 2000 17:25:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <52.642786.25b4f0ea@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Zero Point Energy Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 17:25:46 EST In a message dated 1/17/00 9:22:07 AM, Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM writes: >> One idea I heard was that virtual partical ALMOST always are reabsorbed, >>but sometimes they separte out which can cause new mass creation in the >>universe. Maybe we can artificially up the odds to get the fuel we want. >> >> Kelly >> > >Is this separation you mention the same as what happens with Hawking >radiation? A virtual particle pair pops into existence very close to the >event horizon of a black hole. One of the particles escapes and the other >doesn't, thereby contributing negative energy to the black hole. Thats about the same. The singularity just makes it a lot easier to get them to separte. Course with a singularity there ae tricks you can do to convert half of all mass feed into it, into pure energy. Which is a prety usefull trick in itself. ;) > > >So maybe one method would be to have a drive based around a singularity. >I remember an episode of ST: TNG ("Timescape") which mentioned that Romulan >ships are powered by artificial singularities...maybe they figured this >out > > ;) Or the mass to energy trick I mentioned. That would certainly beat the Federations trick of draging around tons of antimater in their ships! Given thats how they've been powering their ships for about 150 years, they really are geting pretty stagnent! ;) >Seriously though, if Hawking radiation means that negative energy can exist, >isn't that good news for the Alcubierre drive? I suppose we just have to >figure out how to create -ve energy, if indeed we ever can. I think its agreed that negative energy can exist, and that Alcubierre's ideas (anyone know how to pronouce his name!?) are theoretically sound. Course going from bizar equatins to relyable hardware could take a while! Then again this is a big step from the old FTL must be impossible attitude. ;) > >Chris Kelly From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1049" "Monday" "17" "January" "2000" "18:03:01" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "34" "starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1049 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA19880 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:46:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.48]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19874 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:46:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from - (dc2-isdn1032.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.152.8]) by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA27078 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 23:46:07 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000117180301.007143c0@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <200001170325.WAA19985@boo-mda02.boo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:03:01 +0100 Hello Connor, >i dunno. I suppose you are writing to me? I would appreciate it if you would indicate so. >I'm not sure what you don't understand, How much clearer can I make my question: "Where does de beam push?" You must have had some idea of this when you created your idea. If not, what made you assume that your design might work? Thus how did you come to the idea? What would you compare it with? What was your first step from which you extrapolated? >and due to my general lack knowledge on the subject (which, >by the way, you've drawn into glaring relief) I probably >couldn't answer it well enough anyway. You're not getting away this easy. If you like me to listen, (let alone answer), you should at least try. I cannot read your mind. >Can anyone else on the list answer his questions? No, I like the answers or otherwise the questions from you. Tell me what you don't understand. >If not, I think we should drop it, because my usefulness has been >exhausted. Maybe you would like to increase your future usefulness? Timothy From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1055" "Monday" "17" "January" "2000" "15:16:51" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "20" "RE: starship-design: Zero Point Energy" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Zero Point Energy" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1055 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA08730 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:17:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA08704 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:17:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA11491 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:16:46 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA12654; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:17:03 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14467.41699.867551.139356@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Zero Point Energy Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:16:51 -0800 (PST) Walker, Chris writes: > > So maybe one method would be to have a drive based around a singularity. I > remember an episode of ST: TNG ("Timescape") which mentioned that Romulan > ships are powered by artificial singularities...maybe they figured this out > ;) A drive powered by evaporation from a small black hole isn't that physically untenable. The problems are that "small" is still the mass of a mountain or so, and that you have to keep feeding the black hole continuously or it will evaporate completely and blow up your ship. > Seriously though, if Hawking radiation means that negative energy can exist, > isn't that good news for the Alcubierre drive? I suppose we just have to > figure out how to create -ve energy, if indeed we ever can. You really should see the January 2000 _Scientific American_ article. Negative energy can exist, but only temporarily, and the negative energy densities needed for the original Alcubierre drive or the newer "lightweight" version are very, very difficult to form. From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["927" "Monday" "17" "January" "2000" "15:27:49" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "18" "starship-design: ftl, gravity, etc." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: ftl, gravity, etc." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 927 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA00349 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:27:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA29922 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:27:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA13961 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:27:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA12710; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:27:53 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14467.42357.259436.934621@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <388302B1.621F32A6@worldnet.att.net> References: <388302B1.621F32A6@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship Subject: starship-design: ftl, gravity, etc. Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:27:49 -0800 (PST) Curtis Manges writes: > Think about it: there are probably people alive today who can remember > when it was thought impossible to break the sound barrier. Please, let's not trot out that broken analogy yet again. When people thought the sound barrier couldn't be broken, what they specifically meant was that they didn't think it could be broken by conventional aircraft. There were plenty of examples of objects travelling faster than the speed of sound in air (high-powered rifle bullets being a common example). However, airplanes encountered serious aerodynamic problems when approaching the speed of sound, and so some thought it might never be possible to get an airplane to do it. So far, though, there are no real-life examples of FTL and while physical theory has come tantalizingly close to allowing for FTL there's always something that prevents it. Real, working FTL would overturn a big chunk of physics. From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2480" "Monday" "17" "January" "2000" "17:53:10" "-0600" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "48" "Re: starship-design: ftl, gravity, etc." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: ftl, gravity, etc." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2480 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA14148 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:57:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh105.infi.net (fh105.infi.net [209.97.16.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14141 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:57:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer (PSGLB104-03.splitrock.net [209.252.103.99]) by fh105.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA08916 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:57:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200001172357.SAA08916@fh105.infi.net> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: Re: starship-design: ftl, gravity, etc. Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 17:53:10 -0600 > When people thought the sound barrier couldn't be broken, what they > specifically meant was that they didn't think it could be broken by > conventional aircraft. Correct. The tip of a whip can exceed the speed of sound as well. (just an interesting tidbit) > So far, though, there are no real-life examples of FTL and while > physical theory has come tantalizingly close to allowing for FTL there's > always something that prevents it. Real, working FTL would overturn a > big chunk of physics. As far as I can see, there are two problems with finding FTL effects: 1. We don't know where to start from 2. Few want to accept that it might be possible The first problem is hard to overcome. There are some effects where FTL does occur, but not in the sense required for transfer of information. It is FTL...just a useless form of it. EPR effect being one example, which I know Steve knows about. There was some work done on this subject a few years ago by Gunter Nimtz and another, whose name I don't recall at the moment, in Germany, and Professor Raymond Chaio here in the USA. Chaio's was easy to explain...it was just phase velocity. Nimtz's was peculiar, in that a signal was propagated along with it, apparently faster than light. The signal was a bad choice though: music. The rise time is so slow for music, that it was impossible to tell whether it really went FTL or not over the distance used (a few centimeters). To this day we don't know if Nimtz had FTL information transfer or not. I think it is worth trying to do again, with a better signal source. The second problem is one which so unscientific it should never have happened. Nevertheless, it did, because humans are involved. We all have prejudices and get set in our ways. I know I do. It's not easy to change your way of thinking. Luckily, today's scientific community is becoming more open minded, and has taken a renewed interest in such things as FTL. But there are still those who are adamantly against it. A quote in a magazine concerning Nimtz's results was pretty shocking to me "It must be a mistake. It's like saying Australia never existed." That's not a mature attitude. A better statement would be this: "Nimtz's results are interesting. I am not convinced, but we should replicate this, and commence further testing." Opinion: Don't send music. Send a pulse, of duration less than the time it takes light to cross the distance at hand. Sorry about the tangent. --Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["184" "Monday" "17" "January" "2000" "17:54:52" "-0600" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "7" "Re: starship-design: ftl, gravity, etc." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: ftl, gravity, etc." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 184 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA14643 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:59:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh105.infi.net (fh105.infi.net [209.97.16.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14631 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:59:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer (PSGLB104-03.splitrock.net [209.252.103.99]) by fh105.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA12939 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:59:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200001172359.SAA12939@fh105.infi.net> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: Re: starship-design: ftl, gravity, etc. Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 17:54:52 -0600 For your analysis: The name of the German who assisted Nimtz was Winifred Heitmann. I hate remembering something 30 seconds after sending the message it should have been in. :) --K. From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["682" "Monday" "17" "January" "2000" "16:14:07" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "15" "Re: starship-design: ftl, gravity, etc." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: ftl, gravity, etc." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 682 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA18808 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 16:13:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA18802 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 16:13:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA24880 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 16:13:53 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA13024; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 16:14:17 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14467.45135.655923.639313@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <200001172357.SAA08916@fh105.infi.net> References: <200001172357.SAA08916@fh105.infi.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: Re: starship-design: ftl, gravity, etc. Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 16:14:07 -0800 (PST) Kyle R. Mcallister writes: > As far as I can see, there are two problems with finding FTL effects: > > 1. We don't know where to start from > 2. Few want to accept that it might be possible The amount of research and thinking that has gone into trying to find FTL effects seems to me to belie the second point. Lots of people, including some prominent physicists, would love to have FTL and spend a great deal of effort trying to find ways to do it. However, there hasn't yet been any success in finding ways to achieve FTL travel either theoretically or experimentally. I do think it's premature to say that FTL is impossible, but if it is possible it's clearly not easy. From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["871" "Monday" "17" "January" "2000" "19:57:40" "-0500" "Connor" "chithree@boo.net" nil "15" "Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 871 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA02897 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 17:00:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from boo-mda02.boo.net (IDENT:root@boo-mda02.boo.net [151.200.206.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA02872 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 17:00:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-boonet2-36.boo.net [208.184.99.36]) by boo-mda02.boo.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA24331 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 20:14:51 -0500 Message-Id: <200001180114.UAA24331@boo-mda02.boo.net> Organization: saint|ogden productions X-mailer: FoxMail 3.0 beta 1 [eg] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Connor From: Connor Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 19:57:40 -0500 alright, man, I'll do my best. I'm not sure what you mean by beam. If you are talking about a microwave beam sent from earth or another part of the balloon, there is none. The microwave heat left throughout the universe from the big bang enters through the skin of the balloon and hits the internal buffers (can't think of a better word) which are coated in that theoretical phosphor. The phosphor lowers the frequency of a specific wavelength(s) just enough so that it can nolonger pass through the outer skin. The microwaves now bounce throughout the ballon, through large holes cut in the buffers, until they find the back of the balloon. I'm not trying to short change you, I honestly don't understand what you are asking. I'm not good with words, so if you could draw me some kind of illustration I could probably be of more help. Connor chithree@boo.net From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1427" "Monday" "17" "January" "2000" "17:16:54" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "24" "Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1427 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA08200 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 17:16:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08162 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 17:16:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA09314 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 17:16:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA13402; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 17:17:07 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14467.48902.934860.441635@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <200001180114.UAA24331@boo-mda02.boo.net> References: <200001180114.UAA24331@boo-mda02.boo.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: Re: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 17:16:54 -0800 (PST) It seems like any surface that is reflective on one side and absorptive on the other could work as a light sail in deep space. If photons coming from one direction are transmitted or absorbed while photons coming from the opposite direction are reflected, then this surface will pick up velocity in the direction away from the reflective side because reflection imparts more momentum to the surface than absorption. This process would be very slow if you're using the very diffuse microwave background radiation as the source of photons, but in principle it should still work. If the surface actually absorbs photons on one side rather than being a one-way mirror, then there is a velocity limit. As the surface picks up speed, photons striking the forward absorptive surface will impart more backward momentum because they are blue-shifted, and the reflected photons on the rear surface will start imparting less forward momentum as they become more red-shifted. As the surface picks up speed the forces will approach equality and the acceleration will go to zero. If the surface is selectively reflective for only certain photon energies, then again Doppler shifting will eventually shift the incident photons out of the reflection band. This is probably what will kill the acceleration of your "balloon", as eventually the incident photons will no longer be in the wavelengths that your balloon material will handle. From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["579" "Tuesday" "18" "January" "2000" "02:26:33" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "17" "starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 579 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA25040 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:21:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA25028 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:21:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin54.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.54]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA25211 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 19:21:44 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <3883CF58.5C914F31@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 02:26:33 +0000 FTL is a IMPOSSIBLE problem with Special Relativity. Has anybody really checked out Mr. Einstein's theories from first principles or has most people just taken his word that that he is right? Lucky for us somebody has questioned the math, and found a few mistakes made. Check out http://www.autodynamics.org/ for the theory of autodynamics. Here FTL may be restricted to special cases but much more work needs to be done, to find just what conditions apply and to what. Ben. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1009" "Monday" "17" "January" "2000" "18:47:49" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "21" "starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1009 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00680 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:47:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA00673 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:47:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA29840 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:47:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA13956; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:48:02 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14467.54357.432237.277017@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <3883CF58.5C914F31@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <3883CF58.5C914F31@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:47:49 -0800 (PST) Ben Franchuk writes: > FTL is a IMPOSSIBLE problem with Special Relativity. Has anybody > really checked out Mr. Einstein's theories from first principles or > has most people just taken his word that that he is right? Special and general relativity have been verified in many, many experiments. Scientific theories are tested by experiment, not by questioning "first principles", whatever that means. FTL is not inherently impossible in general relativity, although there is no obvious physically realizable way to achieve it. > Lucky for us somebody has questioned the math, and found a few > mistakes made. Check out http://www.autodynamics.org/ for the theory > of autodynamics. Here FTL may be restricted to special cases but much > more work needs to be done, to find just what conditions apply and to > what. Oh please. Autodynamics is just another pseudoscience crock. Einstein's math is just fine; he would have been laughed out of physics if he hadn't been able to do his math right. From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["800" "Tuesday" "18" "January" "2000" "03:54:44" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 800 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA15791 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 19:49:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA15663 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 19:49:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin54.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.54]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA29396 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 20:49:54 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <3883E404.A2F34B7F@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3883CF58.5C914F31@jetnet.ab.ca> <14467.54357.432237.277017@localhost.efn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 03:54:44 +0000 Steve VanDevender wrote: > Oh please. Autodynamics is just another pseudoscience crock. > Einstein's math is just fine; he would have been laughed out of physics > if he hadn't been able to do his math right. People make mistakes and theories change over time. E=MC^2 and the fact that gravity can bend light are major ideas put forth by Einstein. It is in the fine details that mistakes can happen. I feel that Autodynamics is a much sounder theory than SR, but so far any hard tests to prove AD vs SR have not been done, and that is crux of the matter.AD does explain several things to a far greater detail than SR like perihelion advance of the planets venus,earth,mars... where SR can't. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["847" "Monday" "17" "January" "2000" "21:59:30" "-0600" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "27" "Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 847 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18762 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 20:03:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh105.infi.net (fh105.infi.net [209.97.16.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA18757 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 20:03:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer (PSGLB104-40.splitrock.net [209.252.103.143]) by fh105.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA15573 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 23:03:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200001180403.XAA15573@fh105.infi.net> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:59:30 -0600 > FTL is a IMPOSSIBLE problem with Special Relativity. Has anybody really checked > out Mr. Einstein's > theories from first principles or has most people just taken his word that that > he is right? First, SR is 'wrong'...General Relativity is the one of importance. As far as whether or not GR is wrong, I don't know. One must perform experiments to find out. > Lucky for us somebody has questioned the math, and found a few mistakes made. > Check out > http://www.autodynamics.org/ for the theory of autodynamics. Here FTL may be > restricted to > special cases but much more work needs to be done, to find just what conditions > apply and to > what. Autodynamics was a theory to explain some subatomic interactions, and has since been abandoned as it was found to be wrong. It does not replace relativity correctly. --Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["942" "Monday" "17" "January" "2000" "20:12:31" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "17" "Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 942 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA20062 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 20:12:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA20052 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 20:12:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA19754 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 20:12:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA14357; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 20:12:39 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14467.59439.268760.833071@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <3883E404.A2F34B7F@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <3883CF58.5C914F31@jetnet.ab.ca> <14467.54357.432237.277017@localhost.efn.org> <3883E404.A2F34B7F@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 20:12:31 -0800 (PST) Ben Franchuk writes: > I feel that Autodynamics is a much sounder theory than SR, but so far > any hard tests to prove AD vs SR have not been done, and that is crux of > the matter.AD does explain several things to a far greater detail than SR > like perihelion advance of the planets venus,earth,mars... where SR can't. Comparing autodynamics and special relativity is pointless. Special relativity was long ago rendered obsolete by general relativity. Since general relativity does explain a lot of things special relativity didn't, the question is whether autodynamics makes substantially different predictions than general relativity, and whether those can be experimentally verified. If autodynamics proponents are really serious, then they will devise and perform the experiments that would verify their theory is more accurate than general relativity, or discover that the experiments don't support their theory's predictions. From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1343" "Tuesday" "18" "January" "2000" "05:01:41" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "34" "Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1343 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA29897 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 20:57:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA29871 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 20:56:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin54.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.54]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA02685 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:56:57 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <3883F3B5.A0456521@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <200001180403.XAA15573@fh105.infi.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 05:01:41 +0000 "Kyle R. Mcallister" wrote: > Autodynamics was a theory to explain some subatomic interactions, and has > since been abandoned as it was found to be wrong. It does not replace > relativity correctly. A theory may be right,wrong or totally out of the ball park, but just what is meant by the "Correct way" of replacing relativity? To explain the Day,night and year you can have the earth revolve around the sun or the sun revolve around the earth. But was the correct theory a better refinement on idea of the crystal spheres? As AD and SR apply to space travel as I see it after about .5C SR - No travel past light speed. - Time slows down as you reach the speed of light. - Communications still limited by light speed. - speed limited by mass increase of the ship. - Fusion and/or propulsion can not be improved. AD - Unlikely travel past light speed. - time does not slow down. - communications faster than light speed may be possible. - speed limited to about .7C before the ships mass starts to decay. - Fusion and/or propulsion may be improved due to a better understanding of mass<->energy conversion At less than .5C the differences between the two theories are not that great. Ben. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["952" "Monday" "17" "January" "2000" "21:16:27" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "20" "Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 952 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA04914 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:16:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA04908 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:16:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA04864 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:16:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA14697; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:16:37 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14467.63275.303643.616615@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <3883F3B5.A0456521@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <200001180403.XAA15573@fh105.infi.net> <3883F3B5.A0456521@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:16:27 -0800 (PST) Ben Franchuk writes: > SR - speed limited by mass increase of the ship. "Relativistic mass increase" is a misnomer. It's hard to get an object up to a high fraction of c because the amount of energy needed to reach a velocity goes to infinity as the velocity approaches c, not because the object gets more massive as it approaches c. If you're the pilot of a high-velocity rocket, you don't see the fuel efficiency decrease as you go faster nor do you measure your rocket or anything else on board getting heavier. For a very lucid explanation of all this, see the section "Dialog: Use and Abuse of the Concept of Mass" in chapter 8 of _Spacetime Physics_. > AD - time does not slow down. > - speed limited to about .7C before the ships mass starts to decay. Both of these are in direct contradiction to experimental observation; moving objects _do_ show slower rates of time lapse and mass neither increases or decreases with velocity. From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1599" "Tuesday" "18" "January" "2000" "06:16:11" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "43" "Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1599 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15750 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:11:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA15745 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:11:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin54.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.54]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA06148; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 23:11:20 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <3884052B.9ADE1C6B@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <200001180403.XAA15573@fh105.infi.net> <3883F3B5.A0456521@jetnet.ab.ca> <14467.63275.303643.616615@localhost.efn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Steve VanDevender CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 06:16:11 +0000 Steve VanDevender wrote: > Both of these are in direct contradiction to experimental observation; > moving objects _do_ show slower rates of time lapse and mass neither > increases or decreases with velocity. Found in a FAQ. ----------------------Cut----------------------------------------------- There is sometimes confusion surrounding the subject of mass in relativity. This is because there are two separate uses of the term. Sometimes people say "mass" when they mean "relativistic mass", mr but at other times they say "mass" when they mean "invariant mass", m0. These two meanings are not the same. The invariant mass of a particle is independent of its velocity v, whereas relativistic mass increases with velocity and tends to infinity as the velocity approaches the speed of light c. They can be defined as follows. mr = E/c^2 m0 = sqrt(E^2/c^4 - p^2/c^2) Where E is energy, p is momentum and c is the speed of light in vacuum. The velocity dependent relation between the two is. mr = m0 /sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) ------------------------Cut----------------------------------------------- You must have both time increase and mass decrease proven or the theory is wrong. Energy to increase a object becomes infinity as the mass becomes infinity. Ben. ------------------ "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Where a calculator like the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1 1/2 tons." Popular Mechanics, March 1949 From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1085" "Monday" "17" "January" "2000" "22:24:38" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "26" "Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1085 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18808 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:24:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA18801 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:24:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA18905 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:24:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA17097; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:24:47 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14468.1830.145666.42043@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <3884052B.9ADE1C6B@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <200001180403.XAA15573@fh105.infi.net> <3883F3B5.A0456521@jetnet.ab.ca> <14467.63275.303643.616615@localhost.efn.org> <3884052B.9ADE1C6B@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:24:38 -0800 (PST) Ben Franchuk writes: > Found in a FAQ. What FAQ? > ----------------------Cut----------------------------------------------- > There is sometimes confusion surrounding the subject of mass in > relativity. This is because there are two separate uses of the term. > Sometimes people > say "mass" when they mean "relativistic mass", mr but at other times > they say "mass" when they mean "invariant mass", m0. These two meanings > are > not the same. The invariant mass of a particle is independent of its > velocity v, whereas relativistic mass increases with velocity and tends > to infinity as > the velocity approaches the speed of light c. It is preferable to use "mass" to refer to invariant mass, and not use the term "relativistic mass" at all. In most cases what people mean by "relativistic mass" is already covered by the term "energy". > You must have both time increase and mass decrease proven or the > theory is wrong. Energy to increase a object becomes infinity as the > mass becomes infinity. I can't make much sense out of what you're saying here. From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["964" "Tuesday" "18" "January" "2000" "12:05:31" "-0000" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "27" "RE: starship-design: Zero Point Energy" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Zero Point Energy" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 964 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA02744 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 04:06:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns0.sky.co.uk (mail.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.170]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA02738 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 04:06:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from ost_exch_bhs01.bskyb.com (ost_exch_bhs01 [195.153.219.190]) by ns0.sky.co.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA07996 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:02:10 GMT Received: from ost_exch_bhs01.bskyb.com (unverified) by ost_exch_bhs01.bskyb.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:05:33 +0000 Received: by OST_EXCH_BHS01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:05:33 -0000 Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" From: "Walker, Chris" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Zero Point Energy Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:05:31 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve VanDevender [mailto:stevev@efn.org] > > A drive powered by evaporation from a small black hole isn't that > physically untenable. The problems are that "small" is still the mass > of a mountain or so, and that you have to keep feeding the black hole > continuously or it will evaporate completely and blow up your ship. Do you know what the mass flow rate required to prevent evaporation is? If it's too high, then you'd still have to lug around too much matter to make it worth while using a "singularity drive" (TM) over a more conventional propulsion system (that carries on-board fuel). > -----Original Message----- > From: KellySt@aol.com [mailto:KellySt@aol.com] > > Course with a singularity there ae tricks you can do to convert > half of all mass feed into it, into pure energy. Which is a > prety usefull trick in itself. ;) > What are these tricks? I'd be interested in learning... Thanks, Chris From VM Tue Jan 18 08:26:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["281" "Tuesday" "18" "January" "2000" "06:51:22" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "10" "RE: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 281 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA08438 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 04:51:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA08433 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 04:51:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p470.gnt.com [204.49.91.86]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA28395; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 06:51:42 -0600 Message-ID: <000301bf61b2$c24a85c0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <3883E404.A2F34B7F@jetnet.ab.ca> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Ben Franchuk'" Cc: Subject: RE: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 06:51:22 -0600 > AD does explain several things to a far greater > detail than SR > like perihelion advance of the planets venus,earth,mars... > where SR can't. Sorry, but perihelion advance was one of the things PREDICTED by relativity, and one of the first proofs of its correctness.... Lee From VM Tue Jan 18 08:46:32 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["256" "Tuesday" "18" "January" "2000" "16:40:20" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "13" "Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 256 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA20030 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:35:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA20016 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:35:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin57.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.57]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA18370 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:35:25 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38849774.71A3E421@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <200001180403.XAA15573@fh105.infi.net> <3883F3B5.A0456521@jetnet.ab.ca> <14467.63275.303643.616615@localhost.efn.org> <3884052B.9ADE1C6B@jetnet.ab.ca> <14468.1830.145666.42043@localhost.efn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 16:40:20 +0000 Steve VanDevender wrote: > > Ben Franchuk writes: > > Found in a FAQ. > > What FAQ? > SR FAQ: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/relativity.html -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." From VM Tue Jan 18 13:52:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["521" "Tuesday" "18" "January" "2000" "16:44:29" "-0500" "Connor" "chithree@boo.net" nil "12" "Re: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 521 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA21661 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 13:46:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from boo-mda02.boo.net (IDENT:root@boo-mda02.boo.net [151.200.206.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA21652 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 13:46:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-boonet2-19.boo.net [208.184.99.19]) by boo-mda02.boo.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA31939 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 17:01:46 -0500 Message-Id: <200001182201.RAA31939@boo-mda02.boo.net> Organization: saint|ogden productions X-mailer: FoxMail 3.0 beta 1 [eg] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Connor From: Connor Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 16:44:29 -0500 > You must have both time increase and mass decrease proven or the > theory is wrong. Energy to increase a object becomes infinity as the > mass becomes infinity. > I can't make much sense out of what you're saying here. I might be able to help. I think he's saying that as your speed increases, so does your mass, and the heavier your mass the harder it is to accellerate, so that once you are infinitely massive it becomes infinitely difficult to accelerate. I think that's what he means. Connor chithree@boo.net From VM Tue Jan 18 15:47:18 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["563" "Tuesday" "18" "January" "2000" "18:21:29" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "17" "Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 563 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA29933 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 15:22:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA29871 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 15:22:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id z.9.10f349d (4421); Tue, 18 Jan 2000 18:21:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9.10f349d.25b64f79@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 18:21:29 EST In a message dated 1/17/00 8:22:25 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >FTL is a IMPOSSIBLE problem with Special Relativity. Actually thats not true. Travel AT the speed of light is impossible. Travel FASTER then light just gives weird results in the equations. Nothing impossible, just very strange. Folks eaither assume that since you can't travel AT a speed you can't get faster then that. But that assumes a uniform acceleratin, which isn't in theory nessisary. Also the idea of time travel implied in FTL freaks a lot of scientists out. Kelly From VM Tue Jan 18 15:47:18 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1595" "Tuesday" "18" "January" "2000" "18:21:31" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "35" "Re: starship-design: ftl, gravity, etc." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1595 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01557 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 15:23:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d10.mx (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01518 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 15:23:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id s.85.b720a7 (4421); Tue, 18 Jan 2000 18:21:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <85.b720a7.25b64f7b@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stevev@efn.org, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: ftl, gravity, etc. Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 18:21:31 EST In a message dated 1/17/00 6:14:18 PM, stevev@efn.org writes: >Kyle R. Mcallister writes: > > As far as I can see, there are two problems with finding FTL effects: > > > > 1. We don't know where to start from > > 2. Few want to accept that it might be possible > >The amount of research and thinking that has gone into trying to find >FTL effects seems to me to belie the second point. Lots of people, >including some prominent physicists, would love to have FTL and spend a >great deal of effort trying to find ways to do it. However, there >hasn't yet been any success in finding ways to achieve FTL travel either >theoretically or experimentally. I'ld have to disagree. Physists freak out at the thought of FTL and posible impacts to causality logic. One major physist (can't remember name) said time travel and FTL are often assumed to be impossible since their being possible would have implications that they absolutly refuse to beleave could exist. I.E. I don't want it, so it can't be so. The same thing slowed up acceptence of the possibility of Black holes. The knowledge that logically black holes could distort time and space, rip apart mater to energy, etc, was seen as proof that something so bizar couldn't be real. >I do think it's premature to say that FTL is impossible, but if it is >possible it's clearly not easy. Agreed. There ae at best a few phenomina like quantum jumps and some tunneling experiments that show ftl, and some wild theories like Alberque warp fields that suggest ots possible; but thats a long way from a buildable device. Kelly From VM Thu Jan 20 10:07:38 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5146" "Wednesday" "19" "January" "2000" "22:18:03" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "122" "Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5146 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA07388 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 19:19:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA07383 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 19:19:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 8.e4.94197f (3970); Wed, 19 Jan 2000 22:18:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 20 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: chithree@boo.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 22:18:03 EST In a message dated 1/18/00 1:47:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, chithree@boo.net writes: > Subj: Re: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity > Date: 1/18/00 1:47:31 PM Pacific Standard Time > From: chithree@boo.net (Connor) > Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Reply-to: chithree@boo.net (Connor) > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu) > > > > You must have both time increase and mass decrease proven or the > > theory is wrong. Energy to increase a object becomes infinity as the > > mass becomes infinity. > > > I can't make much sense out of what you're saying here. > > I might be able to help. I think he's saying that as your speed increases, > so does your > mass, and the heavier your mass the harder it is to accellerate, so that > once you are > infinitely massive it becomes infinitely difficult to accelerate. I think > that's what he means. > Connor > chithree@boo.net Dear all members on starship-design@list.uoregon, Einstein's Equations from 1905, specify Energy and Energy prime, with one being relativistic (subscript rel.) and the second real (no subscript). Mass is also relativistic with the M prime designation as is velocity. Subscripts are difficult to type in Boolean and typed equations so over many years the unsubscripted equations were memorized as true without considering the complete set of subscripted equations. Descriptions of mass, velocity, energy and their relativistic(observed) effects are often confused as commonly taught. Energy approaching infinity has no effect on velociy and Energy relativistic nor does dividing by zero at c velocity equation in determining Max velocities. The Max constant of relativistic observer's light's speed does not need to change in order for mass to reach and exceed c velocity. In lay terms, should I teach a class that will take you through this SR equation derivations so I do not have to slow down and reload chalk I will refer to Relativistic Mass as M' ; Mass (rel.) ; Mass relative to rest frame or simply M or small case mass; as defined always at the top of the derivation. When we switch problems do not carry the values through to next set of equations assuming a unified field SR theory set of equations and check always at the top of the derivation for new definitions and values. Einstein taught (1955) mass can exceed light speed and how period. If you believe otherwise or believe he must have been suffering from syphilitic dementia if he said it at least respect he met at least the minimum grade point and the minimum of some 3500 class room hours needed beyond high school to earn his Ph.D. Light speed limit for mass has not made the list of universal laws. (requires hundreds of years to make the list) If you have to throw something out because it might violate universal law then throw out a nucleus of protons theory as it violates universal law of like charges repel. Conjuring up a nuclear glue to hold the protons together failed to patch the theory. Best regards Tom Jackson Your Academic Superior (with some 8000 plus classroom hours beyond high school) NA NA NA NA NA :) P.S. Plasma Rocket Engine See above link to faster than light engine that can be built today and requires no future discovery or future technology, I know because I (man of many letters after name) invented it. . tss > > > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- > Return-Path: > Received: from rly-zd05.mx.aol.com (rly-zd05.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.229]) > by air-zd01.mail.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 16:47:31 -0500 > Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (darkwing.uoregon.edu [128.223.142.13]) > by rly-zd05.mx.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 16:47:23 -0500 > Received: (from majordom@localhost) > by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA21661 > for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 13:46:48 -0800 (PST) > Received: from boo-mda02.boo.net (IDENT:root@boo-mda02.boo.net [151.200.206. > 22]) > by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA21652 > for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 13:46:47 -0800 ( > PST) > Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-boonet2-19.boo.net [208.184.99.19]) > by boo-mda02.boo.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA31939 > for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 17:01:46 -0500 > Message-Id: <200001182201.RAA31939@boo-mda02.boo.net> > Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 16:44:29 -0500 > From: Connor > To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" > Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity > Organization: saint|ogden productions > X-mailer: FoxMail 3.0 beta 1 [eg] > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Precedence: bulk > Reply-To: Connor > > From VM Thu Jan 20 10:07:38 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3145" "Thursday" "20" "January" "2000" "14:55:01" "-0000" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "73" "RE: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3145 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA27129 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 06:56:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns0.sky.co.uk (mail.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.170]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA27124 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 06:56:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from ost_exch_bhs01.bskyb.com (ost_exch_bhs01 [195.153.219.190]) by ns0.sky.co.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA17736 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:52:30 GMT Received: from ost_exch_bhs01.bskyb.com (unverified) by ost_exch_bhs01.bskyb.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:55:03 +0000 Received: by OST_EXCH_BHS01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:55:03 -0000 Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" From: "Walker, Chris" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Starship Design'" Subject: RE: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:55:01 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com [mailto:STAR1SHIP@aol.com] > Sent: 20 January 2000 03:18 > To: chithree@boo.net > Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity > http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexb.htm > > > See above link to faster than light engine that can be built > today and requires no future discovery or future technology, I know > because I (man of many letters after name) invented it. Hi Thomas, I've read the page and have a few questions and comments - I'd be grateful if you could answer them please. (1) "...the operating temperatures of the plasma contained range from below the melting point of the radioactive metals used to the temperatures of a blue white star" What material do you intend to use to contain the fuel at "blue white star" temperatures? (2) "A means of manufacturing fuel disks 5 from high grade radioactive metal found extra-terrestrially can be obtained by the following means..." Do you know how much extra-terrestrial high grade radioactive material there is freely available to find? Also the method you outline will either require a human presence, or a very complex piece of machinery (if it's an unmanned probe). (3) "A means to protect the rocket and pay load from projectile collisions with dust and matter it may encounter may be obtained by reducing the cross section of the craft..." Even reducing the cross-section, if you travel at high sublight speeds you're going to get a *lot* of matter hitting the front of your ship. (I appreciate this is just one part of the solution though). (4) "By anticipating the collision of solid matter using conventional technology (such as radar or metal detectors)..." This gets harder as you approach light speed, given that the reaction time available to you will decrease. Also, how effective will radar be if your spacecraft exceeds 'c' (as you claim it might)? (5) "...a heating electric current may be generated through the shape memory effect metal to resist the original penetration at the time of impact by the force of the spring back effect plus the thickness of the metal, thereby, creating an electric armor of my own invention." Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that you would heat the shape memory alloy so that it changes shape just at the time of impact? How many impacts per second do you expect the shield will receive high sublight velocities - too many for the SMA shield system to cope with? (6) "It is more cost efficient, more reliable, safer and faster than any previous invention chemical or atomic." Well, it involves potentially large quantities of radioactive material, so to say that it is safer than any previous chemical or atomic invention is not strictly true - I believe that ion propulsion is safer than your atomic proulsion method. Think of the political problems as well if you want to launch a spacecraft powered by this propulsion system from Earth - look at the fuss that was kicked up about the Cassini probe. If I've misunderstood any of the above, I'm sure you'll let me know ;) Chris From VM Fri Jan 21 10:08:30 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7415" "Thursday" "20" "January" "2000" "21:22:39" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "195" "Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7415 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA02908 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 18:23:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA02898 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 18:23:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id z.b8.1014c26 (3967); Thu, 20 Jan 2000 21:22:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 20 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 21:22:39 EST I> > > Subj: RE: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity > > Date: 1/20/00 6:57:33 AM Pacific Standard Time > > From: Chris.Walker@bskyb.com (Walker, Chris) > > To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com ('STAR1SHIP@aol.com') > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com [mailto:STAR1SHIP@aol.com] > > > Sent: 20 January 2000 03:18 > > > To: chithree@boo.net > > > Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > > > Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity > > > http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexb.htm > > > > > > > > > See above link to faster than light engine that can be built > > > today and requires no future discovery or future technology, I know > > > because I (man of many letters after name) invented it. > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > I've read the page and have a few questions and comments - I'd be > grateful > > if you could answer them please. > > > > (1) "...the operating temperatures of the plasma contained range from > below > > the melting point of the radioactive metals used to the temperatures of a > > blue white star" > > > > What material do you intend to use to contain the fuel at "blue white > star" > > temperatures? Hey Cris, > Depending on the engines mission, I use any of a range of metals from cast > iron to titanium or high temperature ceramic-metalic alloys. Their melting > point is not important as the temperature of the plasma heat that is transferred > by radiant, convection and conductive heat paths through as it is absorbed by > the selected propellant carried out the exhaust port and the casing is > further insulated by the steam (One of the best heat insulaters)generated > when water as propellant is used. > > In lab, place papercup with water over candle and boil water to observe that > the flash point of the paper is lower than the temperature of the flame ( > plasma). The heat paths are controlled to carry the ignition heat away from > the casing. > > > > > (2) "A means of manufacturing fuel disks 5 from high grade radioactive > metal > > found extra-terrestrially can be obtained by the following means..." > > > > Do you know how much extra-terrestrial high grade radioactive material > there > > is freely available to find? Also the method you outline will either > require > > a human presence, or a very complex piece of machinery (if it's an > unmanned > > probe). > > You can find metals nearly any where. > The breeder(fusion) reactor to produce the fuel from ordinary metals is a > simple machine and fusion device. For the fission reactions starting the > breeder require I maintain a seed supply and use only unspent fuel disks to > start the reactions producing the radioactive metal isotopes. Breeder > reactors by design produce from fusion reactions plutonium 239, and americium > 241 from the base metal u235. > > > > > (3) "A means to protect the rocket and pay load from projectile > collisions > > with dust and matter it may encounter may be obtained by reducing the > cross > > section of the craft..." > > > > Even reducing the cross-section, if you travel at high sublight speeds > > you're going to get a *lot* of matter hitting the front of your ship. (I > > appreciate this is just one part of the solution though). > > Reduced cross section and the rain drop effect from high velocity eliminate > the majority of collisions. I invented the electric armor (claim 6) as a part > of the total solution to reduce the risk of collection and when hit the armor > closes the jagged hole edges allowing self sealing or manual patching to be > more effective and give added repair time before life support systems fail. > > > > > (4) "By anticipating the collision of solid matter using conventional > > technology (such as radar or metal detectors)..." > > > > This gets harder as you approach light speed, given that the reaction > time > > available to you will decrease. Also, how effective will radar be if your > > spacecraft exceeds 'c' (as you claim it might)? > > Detecting the charge on the projectile from fields generated at light speed > to charge the armor with the charged deflecting field requires microseconds > as does the change of exhaust (on already) direction to avoid neutral > particle collisions. At c and above all is normal and the radar works just > fine. > > > > > (5) "...a heating electric current may be generated through the shape > memory > > effect metal to resist the original penetration at the time of impact by > the > > force of the spring back effect plus the thickness of the metal, thereby, > > creating an electric armor of my own invention." > > > > Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that you would > > heat the shape memory alloy so that it changes shape just at the time of > > impact? How many impacts per second do you expect the shield will receive > > high sublight velocities - too many for the SMA shield system to cope > with? > > In Lab take shape memory alloy wire stretched through but not fastened > across two poles, With hook on spring scale deform the wire measuring the > deforming force required. Next do the same with the electric shape restoring > force applied. The difference is considerable as the second greater deforming > force required is measured. The reaction is not instantaneous but very close. > > For a sand particle to be hit a near c by a hundred ton space craft recall > form SR momentum the mass relativistic to the sand is millions of tons. The > collision is readily absorbed without damage or change to velocity. > > > > > > (6) "It is more cost efficient, more reliable, safer and faster than any > > previous invention chemical or atomic." > > > > Well, it involves potentially large quantities of radioactive material, > so > > to say that it is safer than any previous chemical or atomic invention is > > not strictly true - I believe that ion propulsion is safer than your > atomic > > propulsion method. > > Mine is designed to be fired from lunar orbit for maximum safety. Ion > propulsion pollutes the atmosphere of earth. The amount of pollutant exhaust > to propel any given mass to some velocity is far less than your ion drive. > Pollution in high radioactive deep space is simply of no concern. The ship > crew is well protected from radiation by the distance from the source and the > inert propellant shield between. > > The extreme slow speed of ion drives compared to mine make the crew spend > far more time in radioactive space than I advise and is the most unsafe of > the two designs. > > > Think of the political problems as well if you want to launch a > spacecraft > > powered by this propulsion system from Earth - look at the fuss that was > > kicked up about the Cassini probe. > > I launch from lunar orbit to bypass the fuss and occasional terrorist > missile. > > > > > If I've misunderstood any of the above, I'm sure you'll let me know ;) > > I will, though have no desire to teach the mistaught ';=)> Yours was good response to issues with good questions. Have I answered them to your satisfaction? Tom > > Regards, > Tom. > > > > > Chris > > > > From VM Fri Jan 21 10:08:30 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6820" "Thursday" "20" "January" "2000" "23:19:26" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "154" "Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6820 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA05982 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 20:20:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA05973 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 20:20:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id z.6f.2cc759 (7042) for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 23:19:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <6f.2cc759.25b9384e@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 20 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 23:19:26 EST > > -----Original Message----- > > From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com [mailto:STAR1SHIP@aol.com] > > Sent: 20 January 2000 03:18 > > To: chithree@boo.net > > Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > > Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity > > http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexb.htm > > > > > > See above link to faster than light engine that can be built > > today and requires no future discovery or future technology, I know > > because I (man of many letters after name) invented it. CAUTION In the below lab experiment demonstrating plasma heat containment, please use a plain paper cup with water boiled over an open candle flame. A waxed paper cup may outgass vapors which ignites the cup. > > Hi Thomas, > > I've read the page and have a few questions and comments - I'd be grateful > if you could answer them please. > > (1) "...the operating temperatures of the plasma contained range from below > the melting point of the radioactive metals used to the temperatures of a > blue white star" > > What material do you intend to use to contain the fuel at "blue white star" > temperatures? Depending on the engines mission, I use any of a range of metals from cast iron to titanium or high temperature ceramic-metalic alloys. Their melting point is not important as the temperature of the plasma that is transferred by radiant, convection and conductive heat paths through as it is absorbed by the selected propellant carried out the exhaust port and the casing is further insulated by the steam (One of the best heat insulaters)generated when water as propellant is used. In lab, place papercup with water over candle and boil water to observe that the flash point of the paper is lower than the temperature of the flame (plasma). The heat paths are controlled to carry the ignition heat away from the casing. > > (2) "A means of manufacturing fuel disks 5 from high grade radioactive metal > found extra-terrestrially can be obtained by the following means..." > > Do you know how much extra-terrestrial high grade radioactive material there > is freely available to find? Also the method you outline will either require > a human presence, or a very complex piece of machinery (if it's an unmanned > probe). You can find metals nearly any where. The breeder(fusion) reactor to produce the fuel from ordinary metals is a simple machine and fusion device. For the fission reactions starting the breeder require I main tain a seed supply and use only unspent fuel disks to start the reactions producing the radioactive metal isotopes. Breeder reactors by design produce from fusion reactions plutonium 239, and americium 241 from the base metal u235. > > (3) "A means to protect the rocket and pay load from projectile collisions > with dust and matter it may encounter may be obtained by reducing the cross > section of the craft..." > > Even reducing the cross-section, if you travel at high sublight speeds > you're going to get a *lot* of matter hitting the front of your ship. (I > appreciate this is just one part of the solution though). Reduced cross section and the rain drop effect from high velocity eliminate the majority of collisions. I invented the electric armor (claim 6) as a part of the total solution to reduce the risk of collection and when hit the armor closes the jagged hole edges allowing self sealing or manual patching to be more effective and give added repair time before life support systems fail. > > (4) "By anticipating the collision of solid matter using conventional > technology (such as radar or metal detectors)..." > > This gets harder as you approach light speed, given that the reaction time > available to you will decrease. Also, how effective will radar be if your > spacecraft exceeds 'c' (as you claim it might)? Detecting the charge on the projectile from fields generated at light speed to charge the armor with the charged deflecting field requires microseconds as does the change of exhaust (on already) direction to avoid neutral particle collisions. At c and above all is normal and the radar works just fine. > > (5) "...a heating electric current may be generated through the shape memory > effect metal to resist the original penetration at the time of impact by the > force of the spring back effect plus the thickness of the metal, thereby, > creating an electric armor of my own invention." > > Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that you would > heat the shape memory alloy so that it changes shape just at the time of > impact? How many impacts per second do you expect the shield will receive > high sublight velocities - too many for the SMA shield system to cope with? In Lab take shape memory alloy wire stretched through but not fastened across two poles, With hook on spring scale deform the wire measuring the deforming force required. Next do the same with the electric shape restoring force applied. The difference is considerable as the second greater deforming force required is measured. The reaction is not instantaneous but very close. For a sand particle to be hit a near c by a hundred ton space craft recall form SR momentum the mass relativistic to the sand is millions of tons. The collision is readily absorbed without damage or change to velocity. > > (6) "It is more cost efficient, more reliable, safer and faster than any > previous invention chemical or atomic." > > Well, it involves potentially large quantities of radioactive material, so > to say that it is safer than any previous chemical or atomic invention is > not strictly true - I believe that ion propulsion is safer than your atomic > propulsion method. Mine is designed to be fired from lunar orbit for maximum safety. Ion propulsion pollutes the atmosphere of earth. The amount of pollutant exhaust to propel any given mass to some velocity is far less than your ion drive. Pollution in high radioactive deep space is simply of no concern. The ship crew is well protected from radiation by the distance from the source and the inert propellant shield between. The extreme slow speed of ion drives compared to mine make the crew spend far more time in radioactive space than I advise and is the most unsafe of the two designs. > Think of the political problems as well if you want to launch a spacecraft > powered by this propulsion system from Earth - look at the fuss that was > kicked up about the Cassini probe. I launch from lunar orbit to bypass the fuss and occasional terrorist missile. > > If I've misunderstood any of the above, I'm sure you'll let me know ;) I will, though have no desire to teach the mistaught ';=)> Regards, Tom. > > Chris > > From VM Fri Jan 21 10:08:30 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["967" "Friday" "21" "January" "2000" "05:49:26" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "25" "starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 967 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA25305 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 21:44:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA25290 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 21:44:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin42.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.42]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA17835; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 22:44:26 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <3887F366.8562538E@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6f.2cc759.25b9384e@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com, "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 05:49:26 +0000 >Detecting the charge on the projectile from fields generated at light speed >to charge the armor with the charged deflecting field requires microseconds >as does the change of exhaust (on already) direction to avoid neutral >particle collisions. At c and above all is normal and the radar works just >fine. Radar or any other detection still requires the returning pulse back from the object to return before the object arives. At C and above radar is usless as the object has hit before you get the echo back. Light is 3E8 meters per second or 300 meters per microsecond. With 1 us for echo return,1 us for radar detection and 1 us for deflection that means a travel speed something about 1/3C. S>>>>>>>>>>># 300 meters radar S<<<<<<<<# 200 meters pulse return S? # 100 meters pulse detect S!# 0 meters deflect ---- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." From VM Fri Jan 21 10:08:30 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2887" "Friday" "21" "January" "2000" "11:33:52" "-0000" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "74" "RE: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2887 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA23264 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 03:35:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns0.sky.co.uk (mail.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.170]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA23259 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 03:35:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from ost_exch_bhs01.bskyb.com (ost_exch_bhs01 [195.153.219.190]) by ns0.sky.co.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA12852 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:30:44 GMT Received: from ost_exch_bhs01.bskyb.com (unverified) by ost_exch_bhs01.bskyb.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:33:55 +0000 Received: by OST_EXCH_BHS01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:33:55 -0000 Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" From: "Walker, Chris" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'STAR1SHIP@aol.com'" Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:33:52 -0000 Hi Tom, > -----Original Message----- > From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com [mailto:STAR1SHIP@aol.com] > Sent: 21 January 2000 01:59 > To: Chris.Walker@bskyb.com > Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity > > Yours was good response to issues with good questions. > Have I answered them to your satisfaction? Mostly...a few more questions though! > Depending on the engines mission, I use any of a range of metals from cast iron to > titanium or high temperature ceramic-metalic alloys. Their melting point is not > important as the temperature of the plasma that is transferred by radiant, > convection and conductive heat paths through as it is absorbed by the selected > propellant carried out the exhaust port and the casing is further insulated by the > steam (one of the best heat insulaters) generated when water as propellant is used. The temperatures we are talking about are of the order of 100,000's degrees C; titanium has a melting point in the low 1,000's. Water in a paper cup doesn't need to transfer nearly so much heat from a candle flame as the engine insulators will need to transfer from the plasma. Are the heat transfer paths in your engine that efficient? > Detecting the charge on the projectile from fields generated at light speed to > charge the armor with the charged deflecting field requires microseconds as does > the change of exhaust (on already) direction to avoid neutral particle collisions. Surely if you're travelling at a high sublight speed, you won't have time to change the ship's velocity (vector) sufficiently to avoid collision with a neutral particle following its detection? > In Lab take shape memory alloy wire...the reaction is not instantaneous but > very close. My point was that if the particle impact rate was high (eg. thousands per second), then you are activating the SMA shield thousands of time per second. Given that it may need to function in this manner *continously* for months or years, I think this gives rise to serious system reliablility and material fatigue issues. Any proposals to deal with these problems? > For a sand particle to be hit a near c by a hundred ton space craft recall from SR > momentum the mass relativistic to the sand is millions of tons. The collision is > readily absorbed without damage or change to velocity. Maybe no appreciable change to ship velocity, but the SMA shield *will* suffer some damage. Over a period of months/years, there will be noticeable erosion of the shield. > Mine is designed to be fired from lunar orbit for maximum safety. Ion propulsion > pollutes the atmosphere of earth. (1) What happens if someone gets imperial and metric units mixed up, and the spacecraft is accidentally launched towards Earth? ;) (2) How do ions pollute the Earth's atmosphere in a more dangerous way (to its inhabitants) than radioacticive debris? Thanks, Chris From VM Fri Jan 21 10:08:31 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2213" "Friday" "21" "January" "2000" "07:18:05" "-0800" "Fred Reyes" "reyesfred@xoommail.com" nil "49" "starship-design: Wirelss power transmission" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2213 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA14063 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 07:18:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from colo02-060.xoom.com (colo02-060.xoom.com [206.132.185.60]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA14055 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 07:18:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 6691 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2000 15:18:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO www1.xoommail.com) (192.168.1.43) by 192.168.1.46 with SMTP; 21 Jan 2000 15:18:05 -0000 Received: (from service@localhost) by www1.xoommail.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA22127; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 07:18:05 -0800 Message-Id: <200001211518.HAA22127@www1.xoommail.com> X-Loop: xoommail.com Organization: Virtual World: A Gamer's Reality Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Fred Reyes From: Fred Reyes Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Wirelss power transmission Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 07:18:05 -0800 I am in the process of completing a project that involves the use of numerous remote units within a confined are to accomplish several tasks. One thing that continuously bugs me is that I have to constantly replace or charge batteries in the power hungry units. Since it has more to do with space travel than my project, I thought you may have some information on Wireless Power Transmission in order to minimize use of battery power. What follows is a short section of my notes, and I hope you can give me a hand: Notes on Wireless Power Transmission I keep finding entries that relate to high power microwave transmissions which I really want to avoid. I believe that the current designs are made for long range transmission of very large amounts of power. What we require is a short range (within one building) transmission of a relatively small amount of power. The current designs are made to power space structures or ships and colonies. All we will require is the transmission of battery power to a few remote units. One idea is the conversion of the building into the stator coil of an alternator. Inside each remote unit will be a rotor section which will pick up the alternating magnetic field and convert it into an alternating current. This current can then be rectified and stored or used as necessary by the equipment. The design is simple, but I do not have enough knowledge of electromagnetics to see if it may work. What I would like to do is use some resources to test a small scale experiment with this idea in mind. If my thought is correct, we will require a very low level magnetic field, probably at a high frequency. Of course there are probably other methods of wireless power transmission, but this one seems to be the most feasible and economical. Also, it does not involve potentially harmful microwaves. Thanks in advance Fred Reyes ______________________________ How to find me: AOLIM: Warlord400 Personal Site: In progress! ______________________________________________________ Get your free web-based email at http://www.xoom.com Birthday? Anniversary? Send FREE animated greeting cards for any occasion at http://greetings.xoom.com From VM Fri Jan 21 13:19:19 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4197" "Friday" "21" "January" "2000" "15:10:31" "-0600" "Kevin Houston" "Kevin@urly-bird.com" nil "93" "Re: starship-design: Wirelss power transmission" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4197 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA13903 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:11:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from web12.ntx.net (web12.ntx.net [209.1.144.158]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA13886 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:11:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from liberty (ip59.minneapolis7.mn.pub-ip.psi.net [38.27.199.59]) by web12.ntx.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA18282; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:16:11 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.20000121141653.017ef190@www.urly-bird.com> X-Sender: web121aa@www.urly-bird.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 In-Reply-To: <200001211518.HAA22127@www1.xoommail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kevin Houston From: Kevin Houston Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: Fred Reyes Subject: Re: starship-design: Wirelss power transmission Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:10:31 -0600 Fred, Magnetic fields might not be such a good idea, since you might be erasing hard drives and making metal objects move if the field is strong enough. I assume that the units are mobile, since if they were stationary, you could just run some bell wire (available at radio shack) from a transformer to the remote units. Have you considered normal AM radio transmissions? Depending upon the amount of power needed, you might be able to use a local radio station (milliwatts???) rather than powering a speaker, you would be powering your units. Old crystal radio sets were able to work without any external power (either battery or wall plug) simply by converting the transmitter's broadcast power into sound energy. If you need more power, take a look at pirate radio equipment. Provided you stay out of the actual AM radio band (or other populated frequenccy bands,) and don't actually transmit any information, you shouldn't have to worry about the FCC. I believe there are certain frequency ranges which are reserved for applications like this. Multiple local transmitters (or antennas) in each room may give you better power reception at the units. (due to inverse square law) Choosing the right frequency will be important, both from a regulation standpoint, and a power transmission standpoint. (energy content of EM varies with the frequency, such that higher freq. means more power.) other ideas: + solar cells + rechargable batteries (assuming the units are mobile, perhaps they can be designed to seek out a wall socket when their batteries are low) + thermocouples (depending on power needs and availability of a high quality heat source.) + other energy storage devices - chemical, mechanical (mainspring, flywheel) Good luck, and please let me know how this turns out. I am interested in this as well, for applications in robotic self-replicating construction units. At 07:18 AM 1/21/00 -0800, you wrote: >I am in the process of completing a project that involves the use of >numerous remote units within a confined are to accomplish several tasks. >One thing that continuously bugs me is that I have to constantly replace >or charge batteries in the power hungry units. Since it has more to do >with space travel than my project, I thought you may have some information >on Wireless Power Transmission in order to minimize use of battery power. >What follows is a short section of my notes, and I hope you can give me a >hand: > >Notes on Wireless Power Transmission > >I keep finding entries that relate to high power microwave transmissions >which I really want to avoid. I believe that the current designs are made >for long range transmission of very large amounts of power. What we >require is a short range (within one building) transmission of a >relatively small amount of power. The current designs are made to power >space structures or ships and colonies. All we will require is the >transmission of battery power to a few remote units. > >One idea is the conversion of the building into the stator coil of an >alternator. Inside each remote unit will be a rotor section which will >pick up the alternating magnetic field and convert it into an alternating >current. This current can then be rectified and stored or used as >necessary by the equipment. The design is simple, but I do not have >enough knowledge of electromagnetics to see if it may work. What I would >like to do is use some resources to test a small scale experiment with >this idea in mind. If my thought is correct, we will require a very low >level magnetic field, probably at a high frequency. > >Of course there are probably other methods of wireless power transmission, >but this one seems to be the most feasible and economical. Also, it does >not involve potentially harmful microwaves. > > >Thanks in advance > >Fred Reyes > >______________________________ >How to find me: >AOLIM: Warlord400 >Personal Site: >In progress! > >______________________________________________________ >Get your free web-based email at http://www.xoom.com >Birthday? Anniversary? Send FREE animated greeting >cards for any occasion at http://greetings.xoom.com > > From VM Sun Jan 23 12:24:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1687" "Friday" "21" "January" "2000" "17:11:13" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "42" "RE: starship-design: Wirelss power transmission" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1687 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01360 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 19:51:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA01355 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 19:51:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p448.gnt.com [204.49.91.64]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id VAA18615; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 21:51:42 -0600 Message-ID: <001501bf648b$fbc97960$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.1.20000121141653.017ef190@www.urly-bird.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Kevin Houston'" , Cc: "'Fred Reyes'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Wirelss power transmission Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 17:11:13 -0600 > Old crystal radio sets were able to work without any external > power (either > battery or wall plug) simply by converting the transmitter's broadcast > power into sound energy. > > If you need more power, take a look at pirate radio > equipment. Provided > you stay out of the actual AM radio band (or other populated > frequenccy > bands,) and don't actually transmit any information, you > shouldn't have to > worry about the FCC. I believe there are certain frequency > ranges which > are reserved for applications like this. Not quite correct...There are some channels set aside for hobbyists, but simply not broadcasting a "meaningful" signal will not keep you out of trouble with the FCC. Although frequency does relate to possible total power output, that does not mean that you can't broadcast quite a bit of power at lower frequencies. Also, the higher the frequency the closer you come to making a microwave oven out of your lab, not a good place to be while working. Then there is your neighbor, no matter what frequency you think you are broadcasting on, there are almost always "lobes" or sidebands (get a good book on RF Radiation), if you crank up the power high enough, you will start to "bleed" into your neighbors TV, radio, etc. Crank it a little higher and you can actually burn his TV out. Modern solid state electronics are not as robust as vacuum tube stuff, it takes very little to fry their electronic innards. Parker's Law: a ten dollar transistor will invariably protect a ten cent fuse by blowing first... Lee __________________________________________ "They make a desert and call it peace." Tacitus From VM Sun Jan 23 12:24:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7415" "Saturday" "22" "January" "2000" "00:07:14" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "170" "Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7415 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA14780 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 21:07:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA14775 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 21:07:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.de.5cc079 (3968); Sat, 22 Jan 2000 00:07:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 20 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 00:07:14 EST In a message dated 1/21/00 3:34:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, Chris.Walker@bskyb.com writes: > > Yours was good response to issues with good questions. > > Have I answered them to your satisfaction? > > Mostly...a few more questions though! > > > Depending on the engines mission, I use any of a range of metals from cast > iron to > titanium or high temperature ceramic-metalic alloys. Their melting > point is not > > important as the temperature of the plasma that is transferred by radiant, > > convection and conductive heat paths through as it is absorbed by the > selected > > propellant carried out the exhaust port and the casing is further > insulated by the > > steam (one of the best heat insulators) generated when water as propellant > is used. > > The temperatures we are talking about are of the order of 100,000's degrees > C; titanium has a melting point in the low 1,000's. Water in a paper cup > doesn't need to transfer nearly so much heat from a candle flame as the > engine insulators will need to transfer from the plasma. Are the heat > transfer paths in your engine that efficient? In a nut shell, from ancient times that which is not space and time, but matter and machines is made of earths, waters, winds and fires. Modern physics labels these as solids, liquids, gases and plasmas as the four known states of matter. As a static plasma generated by static electricity can contain millions of volts yet due little but shock you without the current flow needed to produce the power required to fry you so it is so with high temperature without much mass. No high power that you fear to require more than control of the heat paths. My engine is designed to operate for many years continuously. It is off only for fractions of a second to change plasma generators. As the mass of the water in the cup is greater than the mass of the paper and the mass of the plasma (candle flame) the ratios of the different masses are what determines successful containment. Examine the animation provided and determine the ratios of the mass of casing, to the propellant and to the plasma to see this for yourself. I lessen (from 100%) the control I do use a small amount to provide extra heat for generating heat, light, and electrical power for ship needs. > > > Detecting the charge on the projectile from fields generated at light > speed to > > charge the armor with the charged deflecting field requires microseconds > as does > > the change of exhaust (on already) direction to avoid neutral particle > collisions. > > Surely if you're travelling at a high sublight speed, you won't have time to > change the ship's velocity (vector) sufficiently to avoid collision with a > neutral particle following its detection? As soon as collision course with another object is plotted in real time (analog computer processor) on radar screen, an electrical signal at light speed is sent to the exhaust port jet pumps to inject liquid perpendicular into the plasma stream. The instantaneous result is change in direction as the resulting micro explosion redirects the exhaust changing course instantly. Recall the ship nose cone is pointed sharply. This sheds any unmissed projectiles into two xy vectors so the absorbed impact force of any collision is greatly reduced. I do the best I can to reduce the number of fatal collisions over thousands of missions for hundreds of years. It is going to happen eventually. Star travel is no place for girlie boys. If you do not want to be struck by a car as you cross the street because it "could happen" - then Stay Home:). > > > In Lab take shape memory alloy wire...the reaction is not instantaneous > but > > very close. > > My point was that if the particle impact rate was high (eg. thousands per > second), then you are activating the SMA shield thousands of time per > second. Given that it may need to function in this manner *continously* for > months or years, I think this gives rise to serious system reliablility and > material fatigue issues. Any proposals to deal with these problems? Please, Do not call my "Electric Armor" by any other name such as SMA shell. The name of my invention is my property as is my invention my property. I named it that and that is what it is period. Name your own inventions if you wish not mine. Your suggested name SMA reminds me of government jargo and I do my best to be jargon free in speech. Should your name catch on by accident then I will have to answer the question for years " What does SMA stand for?" I do not need the work load. > > > For a sand particle to be hit a near c by a hundred ton space craft recall > from SR > > momentum the mass relativistic to the sand is millions of tons. The > collision is > > readily absorbed without damage or change to velocity. > > Maybe no appreciable change to ship velocity, but the SMA shield *will* > suffer some damage. Over a period of months/years, there will be noticeable > erosion of the shield. Then and only then will I chose or not to replace the many pieces that have been replaced periodically in routine maintenance. I have addressed all the issues many years ago you raise now. I value your feedback and hope to complete a FAQ(jargonsorry).That I can refer new readers of my patent from 1988. It would be nice to reply to most with: See FAQ click link To each inquiry, but until such time I will do my best answer individually. I prefer real questions over imaginary questions found in so many FAQs > > Mine is designed to be fired from lunar orbit for maximum safety. Ion > propulsion > > pollutes the atmosphere of earth. > > (1) What happens if someone gets imperial and metric units mixed up, and the > spacecraft is accidentally launched towards Earth? ;) You do worry a lot you need to get out more. "What Happens"? The same thing that happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object. > > (2) How do ions pollute the Earth's atmosphere in a more dangerous way (to > its inhabitants) than radioacticive debris? I said that I plan to launch from lunar orbit to explore galaxies as well as our solar systems. So earth's pollution is not my concern as the planet will be cleaned by natural process should I decide to return in far earth's future. I can land or launch from on earth as the propellant stream is composed mainly of hydrogen atoms slowed deliberately to low velocity. The exhaust high velocity sought after in ion drives when striking atmospheric atoms produce a high level or radiation from atom fission when the calculations are made comparatively for a given mass at given velocity for both ships. Mine engine is the least pollution with least radioactive debris My exhaust stream polutes only a few acres of earth at south pole, the same few acres each launch or landing and much less air. Any more good questions Chris on my patent or attached publications at indexC, index, indexda, bio, RocketScientistResume or transcript.htm(l) Regards, Tom A Definitive Analysis of Atomic Power MATH PROOFS CyberSpace Star Ship > > Thanks, > > Chris > From VM Sun Jan 23 12:24:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1169" "Saturday" "22" "January" "2000" "08:04:00" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "33" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1169 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA13786 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 00:04:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA13777 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 00:04:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin41.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.41]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA16391; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 01:03:49 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38896470.755DD48C@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6c.11b6419.25bab74c@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com, "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:04:00 +0000 STAR1SHIP@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 1/20/00 9:46:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, > bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: > > > > Light is 3E8 meters per second or 300 meters per microsecond. > > With 1 us for echo return,1 us for radar detection and 1 us for > > deflection that > > means a travel speed something about 1/3C. > > echo return time is a function of distance and c only so the pulse out and > back travels at c period. Not 1/3 c. velocity=distancetraveled/time so > time=distance traveled times velocity. > True, but with the delays of echo return from the object,radar processesing and active deflection ( 3 us ) a ship can't be faster than 1/3C or the ship will arive at the object before is deflected. Also with time dilation onboard processing too will be slowed down, as the view point is from space not internal to the ship. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." "Where a calculator like the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1 1/2 tons." Popular Mechanics, March 1949 From VM Sun Jan 23 12:24:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4316" "Saturday" "22" "January" "2000" "09:29:15" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "104" "starship-design: VASIMR" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4316 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02372 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 07:37:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA02367 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 07:37:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p443.gnt.com [204.49.91.59]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA15157 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:37:46 -0600 Message-ID: <002101bf64ee$9c3646a0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0022_01BF64BC.519BD6A0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: VASIMR Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:29:15 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01BF64BC.519BD6A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Untitled StationerySeveral recent conversations started me thinking about plasma engines again. I just got around to doing a new search on VASIMR this morning. It seems that Rice has put a great site up on it with lots of information. If anybody wants to learn about a REAL plasma engine that is currently test firing (not just a drawing on paper) the link is: http://spacsun.rice.edu/aspl/ The current design ( ground test unit) is a 10 MW unit and is capable of an ISP up to 10^22 n(m^-3). They have posted a nice chart showing the expected upgrade path to a 100 MW device by 2018. There is also a great graphic of a Mars Pathfinder vehicle. There are two key things about this engine, first it is capable of variable thrust and specific impulse at full power, which makes it ideal for multi-role missions. Second, it is relatively efficient at 60% efficiency. Check the site out. Lee __________________________________________ "They make a desert and call it peace." Tacitus ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01BF64BC.519BD6A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Untitled Stationery
Several recent=20 conversations started me thinking about plasma engines again. = I just got=20 around to doing a new search on VASIMR this morning. It seems that Rice = has put=20 a great site up on it with lots of information. If anybody wants to = learn about=20 a REAL plasma engine that is currently test firing (not just a drawing=20 on paper) the link is:
 
http://spacsun.rice.edu/aspl/<= /SPAN>
 
The = current design (=20 ground test unit) is a 10 MW unit and is capable of an ISP up to 10^22 = n(m^-3).=20 They have posted a nice chart showing the expected upgrade path to a 100 = MW=20 device by 2018. There is also a great graphic of a Mars Pathfinder=20 vehicle.
 
There = are two key=20 things about this engine, first it is capable of variable thrust and = specific=20 impulse at full power, which makes it ideal for multi-role missions. = Second, it=20 is relatively efficient at 60% efficiency. Check the site=20 out.
 
 
Lee
__________________________________________
"They make a desert = and call it=20 peace."
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =         =20 Tacitus
 
------=_NextPart_000_0022_01BF64BC.519BD6A0-- From VM Sun Jan 23 12:24:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3023" "Saturday" "22" "January" "2000" "09:44:27" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "79" "starship-design: Old News" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3023 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA03576 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 07:44:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA03571 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 07:44:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p443.gnt.com [204.49.91.59]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA16081 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:44:45 -0600 Message-ID: <002801bf64ef$97ca6b90$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0029_01BF64BD.4D2FFB90" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Old News Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:44:27 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01BF64BD.4D2FFB90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Untitled StationeryYear old news.... Several topics of discussion in the last couple of days are presented here in brief form by NASA, this may help to clear up some of the misunderstandings about what is and is not possible as well how they may actually work. http://spacescience.nasa.gov/osstech/1quarter99.htm Particularly interesting is the development of the device that was purportedly using phosphorous to propel a vehicle...you were VERY close to the right idea! Lee __________________________________________ "They make a desert and call it peace." Tacitus ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01BF64BD.4D2FFB90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Untitled Stationery
Year = old=20 news....
 
Several topics of=20 discussion in the last couple of days are presented here in brief form = by NASA,=20 this may help to clear up some of the misunderstandings about what is = and is not=20 possible as well how they may actually work.
 
http://space= science.nasa.gov/osstech/1quarter99.htm
 
Particularly=20 interesting is the development of the device that was purportedly using=20 phosphorous to propel a vehicle...you were VERY close to the right=20 idea!
 
Lee
__________________________________________
"They make a desert = and call it=20 peace."
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =         =20 Tacitus
 
------=_NextPart_000_0029_01BF64BD.4D2FFB90-- From VM Sun Jan 23 12:24:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4811" "Saturday" "22" "January" "2000" "09:50:27" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "132" "starship-design: Still Old News, But Getting Warmer..." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4811 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA04006 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 07:50:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA04001 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 07:50:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p443.gnt.com [204.49.91.59]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA16952 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:50:42 -0600 Message-ID: <002f01bf64f0$6d20d4a0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0030_01BF64BE.228664A0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Still Old News, But Getting Warmer... Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:50:27 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0030_01BF64BE.228664A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Untitled StationeryThis is from the same site as the previous thread "Old News" but one quarter more recent: http://spacescience.nasa.gov/osstech/jan-mar99.htm Of particular interest is the topic below: CONFERENCE ON ENABLING TECHNOLOGY AND REQUIRED SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS FOR INTERSTELLAR MISSIONS Building on the success of the breakthrough propulsion sessions at the 1999 Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF), held February 1-4, 1999 in Albuquerque, NM, a conference on interstellar technology and science is planned for STAIF-2000. Session chairs include Les Johnson (MSFC), Sarah A. Gavit (JPL), Marc Millis (GRC), and others. The following sessions are planned within this conference: 1.. Interstellar Mission Concepts 2.. Propulsion Technologies for Interstellar Precursor Missions 3.. Propulsion Technologies for Interstellar Flyby and Rendezvous Missions 4.. Mission Benefits of Breakthrough Propulsion Physics 5.. Candidate Space Experiments to Test Breakthrough Propulsion Physics 6.. Research Progress toward Breakthrough Propulsion Physics 7.. Computational Tools to Address Problems of Breakthrough Propulsion Physics For further information contact: Marc G. Millis, NASA GRC (216-977-7535) Lee __________________________________________ "They make a desert and call it peace." Tacitus ------=_NextPart_000_0030_01BF64BE.228664A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Untitled Stationery

This is = from the same=20 site as the previous thread "Old News" but one quarter more=20 recent:

http://spaces= cience.nasa.gov/osstech/jan-mar99.htm

Of = particular interest=20 is the topic below:

CONFERENCE ON ENABLING TECHNOLOGY = AND=20 REQUIRED SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS FOR INTERSTELLAR MISSIONS=20 Building on the success of = the=20 breakthrough propulsion sessions at the 1999 Space Technology and = Applications=20 International Forum (STAIF), held February 1-4, 1999 in Albuquerque, NM, = a=20 conference on interstellar technology and science is planned for = STAIF-2000.=20 Session chairs include Les Johnson (MSFC), Sarah A. Gavit (JPL), Marc = Millis=20 (GRC), and others. The following sessions are planned within this = conference:=20

  1. Interstellar Mission Concepts

  2. Propulsion Technologies for = Interstellar Precursor=20 Missions

  3. Propulsion Technologies for = Interstellar Flyby and=20 Rendezvous Missions

  4. Mission Benefits of Breakthrough = Propulsion=20 Physics

  5. Candidate Space Experiments to Test = Breakthrough=20 Propulsion Physics

  6. Research Progress toward Breakthrough = Propulsion=20 Physics

  7. Computational Tools to Address = Problems of=20 Breakthrough Propulsion Physics

For further information contact: Marc G. = Millis, NASA=20 GRC (216-977-7535)

Lee

__________________________________________
"They make a desert = and call it=20 peace."
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =         =20 Tacitus
 
------=_NextPart_000_0030_01BF64BE.228664A0-- From VM Sun Jan 23 12:24:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2214" "Saturday" "22" "January" "2000" "09:53:48" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "59" "starship-design: Shades of Galaxy Quest" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2214 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA04872 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 07:54:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA04867 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 07:54:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p443.gnt.com [204.49.91.59]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA17412 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:54:03 -0600 Message-ID: <003601bf64f0$e4fb0d10$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0037_01BF64BE.9A609D10" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Shades of Galaxy Quest Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 09:53:48 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0037_01BF64BE.9A609D10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Untitled StationeryJust when you thought science fiction movies had hit a new low...NASA goes and turns it into science...or the scientific method at least. http://spacescience.nasa.gov/osstech/horizon2.htm#Paradigms Lee __________________________________________ "They make a desert and call it peace." Tacitus ------=_NextPart_000_0037_01BF64BE.9A609D10 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Untitled Stationery
Just = when you=20 thought science fiction movies had hit a new low...NASA goes and turns = it into=20 science...or the scientific method at least.
 
http= ://spacescience.nasa.gov/osstech/horizon2.htm#Paradigms
 
Lee
__________________________________________
"They make a desert = and call it=20 peace."
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =         =20 Tacitus
 
------=_NextPart_000_0037_01BF64BE.9A609D10-- From VM Sun Jan 23 12:24:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4710" "Saturday" "22" "January" "2000" "23:26:17" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "113" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4710 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA10682 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 20:27:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA10677 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 20:27:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id z.b0.7f9298 (3973); Sat, 22 Jan 2000 23:26:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 20 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 23:26:17 EST In a message dated 1/22/00 12:04:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: > Subj: Re: starship-design: FTL travel > Date: 1/22/00 12:04:45 AM Pacific Standard Time > From: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca (Ben Franchuk) > Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Reply-to: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca (Ben Franchuk) > To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (starship-design@ > lists.uoregon.edu) > > STAR1SHIP@aol.com wrote: > > > > In a message dated 1/20/00 9:46:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: > > > > > > Light is 3E8 meters per second or 300 meters per microsecond. > > > With 1 us for echo return,1 us for radar detection and 1 us for > > > deflection that > > > means a travel speed something about 1/3C. > > > > echo return time is a function of distance and c only so the pulse out and > > back travels at c period. Not 1/3 c. velocity=distancetraveled/time so > > time=distance traveled times velocity. > > > True, checking my math v=d/t so multiplying both sides by t to solve gives vt=d, dividing both sides by v we get t=d/v so my answer time= distance times velocity was wrong and so your true becomes false. You should have caught that. >but with the delays of echo return from the object,radar > processesing > and active deflection ( 3 us ) a ship can't be faster than 1/3C or the > ship > will arive at the object before is deflected. Also with time dilation > onboard > processing too will be slowed down, as the view point is from space not > internal > to the ship. When a object reaches the effective range of the radar it does not need to wait for a main bang pulse to arrive as they are continuly sent. The echo races toward the reciever at light speed. The radar is an anolog computer that takes data from sensors(ear) processes it in real time at light speed to give output. Zero is the processor time unlike digital processors that take a long time to process digital data thus the output is not in realtime(now) but past time(then). Two of your named variable parameters are actually zero not micro seconds so the max velocity detectable is mass at light speed. I could be wrong as I was above but request you give a full derivation or credible source for what you say before I change my mind with new evidence as it has been thirty years since I managed an electronic warfare laboratory jamming radars. A requirement then I met of knowing more about the radar than the radar operators and builders to succeed in jamming them. Do you know something I do not know or may have forgotten? It is possible:) Regards, Tom > > > -- > "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... > We borrow it from our children." > "Where a calculator like the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes > and > weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum > tubes > and weigh only 1 1/2 tons." Popular Mechanics, March 1949 > > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- > Return-Path: > Received: from rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (rly-zb05.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.5]) by > air-zb03.mail.aol.com (v67_b1.21) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 03:04:45 -0500 > Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (darkwing.uoregon.edu [128.223.142.13]) > by rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (v67_b1.21) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 03:04:31 - > 0500 > Received: (from majordom@localhost) > by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA13786 > for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 00:04:14 -0800 (PST) > Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) > by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA13777 > for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 00:04:13 -0800 ( > PST) > Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin41.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.41]) > by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA16391; > Sat, 22 Jan 2000 01:03:49 -0700 (MST) > Message-ID: <38896470.755DD48C@jetnet.ab.ca> > Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:04:00 +0000 > From: Ben Franchuk > X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) > X-Accept-Language: en > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com, > "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" edu> > Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel > References: <6c.11b6419.25bab74c@aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Precedence: bulk > Reply-To: Ben Franchuk > > From VM Sun Jan 23 12:24:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2083" "Saturday" "22" "January" "2000" "23:35:18" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "48" "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2083 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA12761 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 20:36:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA12756 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 20:36:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id z.21.846302 (3977); Sat, 22 Jan 2000 23:35:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <21.846302.25bbdf06@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 20 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 23:35:18 EST In a message dated 1/20/00 9:44:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: > >Detecting the charge on the projectile from fields generated at light speed > >to charge the armor with the charged deflecting field requires microseconds > > >as does the change of exhaust (on already) direction to avoid neutral > >particle collisions. At c and above all is normal and the radar works just > >fine. > > Radar or any other detection still requires the returning pulse back > from the object to return before the object arives. At C and above radar > is usless as the object has hit before you get the echo back. > > Light is 3E8 meters per second or 300 meters per microsecond. > With 1 us for echo return,1 us for radar detection and 1 us for > deflection that > means a travel speed something about 1/3C. > > > S>>>>>>>>>>># 300 meters radar > S<<<<<<<<# 200 meters pulse return > S? # 100 meters pulse detect > S!# 0 meters deflect > When a object reaches the effective range of the radar it does not need to wait for a main bang pulse to arrive as they are continuly sent. The echo races toward the reciever at light speed. The radar is an anolog computer that takes data from sensors(ear) processes it in real time at light speed to give output. Zero is the processor time unlike digital processors that take a long time to process digital data thus the output is not in realtime(now) but past time(then). Two of your named variable parameters are actually zero not micro seconds so the max velocity detectable is mass at light speed. I could be wrong but request you give a full derivation or credible source for what you say before I change my mind with new evidence as it has been thirty years since I managed an electronic warfare laboratory jamming radars. A requirement then I met of knowing more about the radar than the radar operators and builders to succeed in jamming them. Do you know something I do not know or may have forgotten? It is possible:) Regards, Tom From VM Sun Jan 23 12:24:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["736" "Saturday" "22" "January" "2000" "20:55:25" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "15" "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 736 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA15951 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 20:55:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA15946 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 20:55:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA24065 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 20:54:53 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04333; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 20:55:32 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14474.35261.922452.485721@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <21.846302.25bbdf06@aol.com> References: <21.846302.25bbdf06@aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 20:55:25 -0800 (PST) STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > When a object reaches the effective range of the radar it does not need to > wait for a main bang pulse to arrive as they are continuly sent. If your ship is going faster than the radar pulses then there is no way for the radar pulses to reach an object in front of the ship before the ship does. That's as simple an explanation as there is. I appreciate your enthusiasm for building a starship but when you talk about physics it looks like you are stringing random words together without any understanding. The point of this mailing list is to talk about how to build a starship using what we do know about physics, not what we wish might be true, and certainly not based merely on wild handwaving. From VM Sun Jan 23 12:24:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1457" "Saturday" "22" "January" "2000" "23:55:55" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "28" "Re: starship-design: VASIMR" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1457 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA16104 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 20:56:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA16091 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 20:56:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 4.b8.1101c7f (3977); Sat, 22 Jan 2000 23:55:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 20 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: VASIMR Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 23:55:55 EST In a message dated 1/22/00 7:38:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > Untitled StationerySeveral recent conversations started me thinking about > plasma engines again. I just got around to doing a new search on VASIMR this > morning. It seems that Rice has put a great site up on it with lots of > information. If anybody wants to learn about a REAL plasma engine that is > currently test firing (not just a drawing on paper) the link is: > > http://spacsun.rice.edu/aspl/ > > The current design ( ground test unit) is a 10 MW unit and is capable of an > ISP up to 10^22 n(m^-3). They have posted a nice chart showing the expected > upgrade path to a 100 MW device by 2018. There is also a great graphic of a > Mars Pathfinder vehicle. Checked site out top to bottom all that was seen are working diagrams (drawings on paper) no built engine operating photographs just some expected engine specs and a lot of hype. Fastest rocket on drawing board remains mine. Notice they did not have a plasma rocket engine but magnetoplasma plans as the plasma name is on my patent and my prior invention. If you want to see sometihing real see my letter from the patent office stating my invention has significant utility for NASA. Even if they do build and test fire in future. It is so s l o w wwww next to my real plasma rocket engine. Plasma Rocket Engine From VM Sun Jan 23 12:24:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7349" "Sunday" "23" "January" "2000" "04:24:27" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "181" "Fwd: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7349 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA20981 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 01:26:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA20976 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 01:26:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id z.64.262c22 (3970) for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 04:24:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <64.262c22.25bc22cb@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_64.262c22.25bc22cb_boundary" X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 20 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Fwd: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 04:24:27 EST --part1_64.262c22.25bc22cb_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/23/00 1:14:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, STAR1SHIP writes: > Subj: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel > Date: 1/23/00 1:14:46 AM Pacific Standard Time > From: STAR1SHIP > To: stevev@efn.org > > In a message dated 1/22/00 8:55:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, stevev@efn.org > writes: > > > STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > > > When a object reaches the effective range of the radar it does not > need > > to > > > wait for a main bang pulse to arrive as they are continuly sent. > > > > If your ship is going faster than the radar pulses then there is no way > > for the radar pulses to reach an object in front of the ship before the > > ship does. That's as simple an explanation as there is. > > > That is true but you missed the subject thread as I was talking about > onboard radar aboard a >c, on collision course that is not traveling >c toward it. > > That which is not detected can be delt with by other provisions used. > > > > I appreciate your enthusiasm for building a starship but when you talk > > about physics it looks like you are stringing random words together > > without any understanding. The point of this mailing list is to talk > > about how to build a starship using what we do know about physics, not > > what we wish might be true, and certainly not based merely on wild > > handwaving. > > That is a stupid statement period. Einstein taught what I teach about the > possibility of faster than light graft. Your physics that you know cannot get > there period. The New knowledge that I bring to this group is Einsteins non > publized teachings of 1955 plus my new inventon knowledge that you could not > of possibly know about. > > If you do not know how to read patent applications than consult an attorney. > All invention is new knowledge. It is not what you were taught or it simply > could not be patented. > If you read it expecting to see some thing about atoms, you will be > dissapointed for all high patent court decision have held that atomic theory > is not needed or cannot be required in any patent application as it is " > theory". The most common example in patent literature is the description of > the cathode ray tube with out mention of electrons protons and neutron. This > is given to patent attorneys so they can write their patents with out theory > so that when theory is found false the patent will not be declared invalid. > This is the law of the land to date and has been the law from the beginning > of the patent office. > > This paraphrase is what Neils Bohr was told by Einstein in the eary 20th > century when Bohr sought his endorsement of the proton nucleas theory he > deveoped. > > "Non scientific nonsense- It violates universal law of like charges repel > throw the theory out. "Bohr stammered "Maybe some kind of glue hold thems > together". Einsten said "Throw the theory out" and "Go back to Ruterfords > gold foil experiment examine his results for a non static atom and bring me > theory consistant with universal law". Bohr failed to throw the theory out > and it remains incomplete lacking a gravitational part and still in violation > of known universal law. > > Do not pretend you know what all physicists know, such arrogance is > foolishness. > Grow up.. > Learn something you do not know about physics. "Mass can exceed light > speed and how" taught Einstien-- listen and shut up.. > > > > > > > > > > --part1_64.262c22.25bc22cb_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Full-name: STAR1SHIP Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 04:14:46 EST Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel To: stevev@efn.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 20 In a message dated 1/22/00 8:55:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, stevev@efn.org writes: > STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > > When a object reaches the effective range of the radar it does not need > to > > wait for a main bang pulse to arrive as they are continuly sent. > > If your ship is going faster than the radar pulses then there is no way > for the radar pulses to reach an object in front of the ship before the > ship does. That's as simple an explanation as there is. That is true but you missed the subject thread as I was talking about onboard radar aboard a >c, c toward it. That which is not detected can be delt with by other provisions used. > > I appreciate your enthusiasm for building a starship but when you talk > about physics it looks like you are stringing random words together > without any understanding. The point of this mailing list is to talk > about how to build a starship using what we do know about physics, not > what we wish might be true, and certainly not based merely on wild > handwaving. That is a stupid statement period. Einstein taught what I teach about the possibility of faster than light graft. Your physics that you know cannot get there period. The New knowledge that I bring to this group is Einsteins non publized teachings of 1955 plus my new inventon knowledge that you could not of possibly know about. If you do not know how to read patent applications than consult an attorney. All invention is new knowledge. It is not what you were taught or it simply could not be patented. If you read it expecting to see some thing about atoms, you will be dissapointed for all high patent court decision have held that atomic theory is not needed or cannot be required in any patent application as it is "theory". The most common example in patent literature is the description of the cathode ray tube with out mention of electrons protons and neutron. This is given to patent attorneys so they can write their patents with out theory so that when theory is found false the patent will not be declared invalid. This is the law of the land to date and has been the law from the beginning of the patent office. This paraphrase is what Neils Bohr was told by Einstein in the eary 20th century when Bohr sought his endorsement of the proton nucleas theory he deveoped. "Non scientific nonsense- It violates universal law of like charges repel throw the theory out. "Bohr stammered "Maybe some kind of glue hold thems together". Einsten said "Throw the theory out" and "Go back to Ruterfords gold foil experiment examine his results for a non static atom and bring me theory consistant with universal law". Bohr failed to throw the theory out and it remains incomplete lacking a gravitational part and still in violation of known universal law. Do not pretend you know what all physicists know, such arrogance is foolishness. Grow up.. Learn something you do not know about physics. "Mass can exceed light speed and how" taught Einstien-- listen and shut up.. > > > --part1_64.262c22.25bc22cb_boundary-- From VM Sun Jan 23 13:38:01 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1246" "Sunday" "23" "January" "2000" "13:36:32" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "26" "Fwd: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1246 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22609 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 13:36:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22381 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 13:36:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA16384 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 13:35:57 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07715; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 13:36:34 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14475.29792.985119.814354@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <64.262c22.25bc22cb@aol.com> References: <64.262c22.25bc22cb@aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Fwd: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 13:36:32 -0800 (PST) STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > Einstein taught what I teach about the possibility of faster than > light graft. Your physics that you know cannot get there period. The > New knowledge that I bring to this group is Einsteins non publized > teachings of 1955 plus my new inventon knowledge that you could not > of possibly know about. Please give a citation for these writings of Einstein that you believe justify your position. At best they are quite at odds with everything else Einstein wrote about relativity. If you claim that no one else can see them because they are "non-publized" (sic) then you should not expect us to believe that they exist or that they say what you claim they say. > If you do not know how to read patent applications than consult an > attorney. The patent office has never consistently taken physical reality into account when reviewing or granting patent applications. One is not required to build a prototype to get a patent, and the existence of a patent is not proof that a concept is physically realizable. As I said, this mailing list is for discussing how to achieve interstellar travel with what we do know about physics. This has disappointed more than previous subscriber with fanciful ideas. From VM Mon Jan 24 10:12:12 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["915" "Sunday" "23" "January" "2000" "23:05:33" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "20" "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 915 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA17857 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 15:06:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA17852 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 15:06:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin47.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.47]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA11223; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 16:07:09 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <388B893D.A321B998@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <21.846302.25bbdf06@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 23:05:33 +0000 STAR1SHIP@aol.com wrote: > When a object reaches the effective range of the radar it does not need to > wait for a main bang pulse to arrive as they are continuly sent. The echo > races toward the reciever at light speed. The radar is an anolog computer > that takes data from sensors(ear) processes it in real time at light speed to > give output. Zero is the processor time unlike digital processors that take a > long time to process digital data thus the output is not in realtime(now) but > past time(then). Two of your named variable parameters are actually zero not > micro seconds so the max velocity detectable is mass at light speed. Processing time in Real life is not zero. In the example I used processing time for a ACTIVE deflection was 3 us. This requires a speed of 1/3C to permit real time processing with this delay. A zap-o laser beam to vaporize space dust would not have that delay. > Tom From VM Mon Jan 24 10:12:12 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2550" "Monday" "24" "January" "2000" "12:36:40" "-0000" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "60" "RE: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2550 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA02660 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 05:10:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns1.sky.co.uk (ns1.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.171]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA02614 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 05:10:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from ost_exch_bhs01.bskyb.com (ost_exch_bhs01 [195.153.219.190]) by ns1.sky.co.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA24213 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 13:24:37 GMT Received: from ost_exch_bhs01.bskyb.com (unverified) by ost_exch_bhs01.bskyb.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 12:40:33 +0000 Received: by OST_EXCH_BHS01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 12:39:41 -0000 Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" From: "Walker, Chris" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'STAR1SHIP@aol.com'" Cc: "'Starship Design'" Subject: RE: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 12:36:40 -0000 Hi Tom, > Please, Do not call my "Electric Armor" by any other name such as SMA shell. > Name your own inventions if you wish not mine. Your suggested name SMA reminds me > of government jargon and I do my best to be jargon free in speech. > Should your name catch on by accident... Not my name! Industry-standard acronym. Just felt it described the invention more precisely (ie. it's a shield made from a shape memory alloy). But, like you say, it's your invention not mine. Yes - I do realise that many people may very well not have heard of the acronym and so you wish to avoid using this jargon in a broad public context. However, I was using it for shorthand for this mailing list. I was just thinking about the material fatigue issues. For example, say you have an average of one particle impact every second. For a year-long mission, you will have over 30 million impacts to deal with. This means 30M+ thermal and mechanical cycles that the electric armour will undergo. I'm no materials scientist (you guessed? ;) but I think that fatigue failure would be likely to occur more than once per year in this case, leading to frequent replacements. So, why not just use a big lump of material instead? Then, you just have to deal with the erosion effects - needs replacing less often. Presumably, you feel that the electric armour offers a sufficiently greater advantage to be worthwhile using? > Then and only then will I chose or not to replace the many pieces that have > been replaced periodically in routine maintenance. Fair enough. Out of curiosity, do you envisage carrying the replacement materials with you (costly), or manufacturing them on the voyage (eg. from mining passing asteroids or planets)? > I have addressed all the issues many years ago you raise now. I value your > feedback and hope to complete a FAQ(jargonsorry). That I can refer new readers > of my patent from 1988. Would be a good idea. You may have addressed all the issues, but we don't know your solutions until we ask ;) > You do worry a lot you need to get out more. As a spacecraft subsystem engineer by trade (attitude and orbital control), it's a job requirement to be conservative and worry about problems, both likely and unlikely. My question (though intended more tounge-in-cheek as a dig towards NASA's recenet "mishap") dealt with a simple risk assesment issue. The chances of a launch going wrong and sending the craft towards Earth may be low, but the consequences are very serious indeed. Get out more to where? ;) Regards, Chris From VM Mon Jan 24 10:12:12 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3098" "Monday" "24" "January" "2000" "07:13:40" "-0800" "Fred Reyes" "reyesfred@xoommail.com" nil "86" "RE: starship-design: Wirelss power transmission" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Wirelss power transmission" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3098 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22292 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 07:13:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from colo02-060.xoom.com (colo02-060.xoom.com [206.132.185.60]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA22287 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 07:13:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 2723 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2000 15:13:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO www1.xoommail.com) (192.168.1.43) by 192.168.1.46 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2000 15:13:40 -0000 Received: (from service@localhost) by www1.xoommail.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA21894; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 07:13:40 -0800 Message-Id: <200001241513.HAA21894@www1.xoommail.com> X-Loop: xoommail.com Organization: Virtual World: A Gamer's Reality Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Fred Reyes From: Fred Reyes Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Wirelss power transmission Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 07:13:40 -0800 Would this work if I had multiple crystal receivers operating in parallel so that more power can be achieved? I think I will require more than milliwatts. I am not worried about any radio energy leaving the building, since our building has been specially built as a faraday cage. Once, while working on a contained plasma, we pumped quite a bit of radio energy into it and got miniscule results outside the building when checking for leaks. My ultimate goal here is to have the remote units not require any other power other than that provided by the matrix as long as they remain in range. If the units move out of range of the matrix, then they would switch to battery power.....but I do not want to rely on batteries as the main source of power. Also, there are no hardrives or any other magnetic media in the remote units....they are composed completely of RAM and ROM (kinda like one big virtual drive). Thanks, Fred "L. Parker" wrote: > > Old crystal radio sets were able to work without any external > > power (either > > battery or wall plug) simply by converting the transmitter's broadcast > > power into sound energy. > > > > If you need more power, take a look at pirate radio > > equipment. Provided > > you stay out of the actual AM radio band (or other populated > > frequenccy > > bands,) and don't actually transmit any information, you > > shouldn't have to > > worry about the FCC. I believe there are certain frequency > > ranges which > > are reserved for applications like this. > > Not quite correct...There are some channels set aside for hobbyists, but > simply not broadcasting a "meaningful" signal will not keep you out of > trouble with the FCC. > > Although frequency does relate to possible total power output, that does not > mean that you can't broadcast quite a bit of power at lower frequencies. > Also, the higher the frequency the closer you come to making a microwave > oven out of your lab, not a good place to be while working. > > Then there is your neighbor, no matter what frequency you think you are > broadcasting on, there are almost always "lobes" or sidebands (get a good > book on RF Radiation), if you crank up the power high enough, you will start > to "bleed" into your neighbors TV, radio, etc. Crank it a little higher and > you can actually burn his TV out. Modern solid state electronics are not as > robust as vacuum tube stuff, it takes very little to fry their electronic > innards. > > Parker's Law: a ten dollar transistor will invariably protect a ten cent > fuse by blowing first... > > > > Lee > > __________________________________________ > "They make a desert and call it peace." > Tacitus > > ______________________________ How to find me: AOLIM: Warlord400 Personal Site: In progress! ______________________________________________________ Get your free web-based email at http://www.xoom.com Birthday? Anniversary? Send FREE animated greeting cards for any occasion at http://greetings.xoom.com From VM Mon Jan 24 10:12:12 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["887" "Monday" "24" "January" "2000" "15:50:35" "+0000" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "23" "Re: starship-design: Wirelss power transmission" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Wirelss power transmission" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 887 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA00923 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 07:51:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA00915 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 07:51:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin42.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.42]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA12958 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:52:10 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <388C74CB.50CF5436@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <200001241513.HAA21894@www1.xoommail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Wirelss power transmission Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 15:50:35 +0000 Fred Reyes wrote: > My ultimate goal here is to have the remote units not require any other > power other than that provided by the matrix as long as they remain in > range. If the units move out of range of the matrix, then they would > switch to battery power.....but I do not want to rely on batteries as the > main source of power. > > Also, there are no hardrives or any other magnetic media in the remote > units....they are composed completely of RAM and ROM (kinda like one big > virtual drive). > Don't forget that you need a sizable antennae for the power reception and all electronic components need to be shielded from the power microwaves. I would not like microwaves floating around my living areas, I'll take the rooms next to fusion plant where it is safer. :) -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." From VM Mon Jan 24 10:12:12 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4151" "Monday" "24" "January" "2000" "10:36:18" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "129" "RE: starship-design: Wirelss power transmission" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Wirelss power transmission" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4151 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18750 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:41:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA18726 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:41:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p477.gnt.com [204.49.91.93]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA25276; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 10:40:47 -0600 Message-ID: <000701bf6689$c01afc90$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200001241513.HAA21894@www1.xoommail.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Fred Reyes'" , Subject: RE: starship-design: Wirelss power transmission Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 10:36:18 -0600 Microwave power reception isn't that difficult, most of the parts are available off the shelf I think. I haven't had anything to do with that field in over thirty years though. I was simply concerned with the other ramifications of what you said. If your building is properly shielded, there isn't really any problem with either the legalities or the safety risks. I used to work in a room that was a fifty by fifty cage inside a four foot thick concrete bunker...our concerns were mostly directed at external listening devices rather than the FCC or health problems.... Lee > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of > Fred Reyes > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 9:14 AM > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: RE: starship-design: Wirelss power transmission > > > Would this work if I had multiple crystal receivers operating > in parallel > so that more power can be achieved? I think I will require more than > milliwatts. I am not worried about any radio energy leaving > the building, > since our building has been specially built as a faraday cage. Once, > while working on a contained plasma, we pumped quite a bit of > radio energy > into it and got miniscule results outside the building when > checking for > leaks. > > My ultimate goal here is to have the remote units not require > any other > power other than that provided by the matrix as long as they > remain in > range. If the units move out of range of the matrix, then they would > switch to battery power.....but I do not want to rely on > batteries as the > main source of power. > > Also, there are no hardrives or any other magnetic media in > the remote > units....they are composed completely of RAM and ROM (kinda > like one big > virtual drive). > > Thanks, > Fred > > > "L. Parker" wrote: > > > Old crystal radio sets were able to work without any external > > > power (either > > > battery or wall plug) simply by converting the > transmitter's broadcast > > > power into sound energy. > > > > > > If you need more power, take a look at pirate radio > > > equipment. Provided > > > you stay out of the actual AM radio band (or other populated > > > frequenccy > > > bands,) and don't actually transmit any information, you > > > shouldn't have to > > > worry about the FCC. I believe there are certain frequency > > > ranges which > > > are reserved for applications like this. > > > > Not quite correct...There are some channels set aside for > hobbyists, but > > simply not broadcasting a "meaningful" signal will not > keep you out of > > trouble with the FCC. > > > > Although frequency does relate to possible total power > output, that > does not > > mean that you can't broadcast quite a bit of power at > lower frequencies. > > Also, the higher the frequency the closer you come to > making a microwave > > oven out of your lab, not a good place to be while working. > > > > Then there is your neighbor, no matter what frequency you > think you are > > broadcasting on, there are almost always "lobes" or > sidebands (get a > good > > book on RF Radiation), if you crank up the power high > enough, you will > start > > to "bleed" into your neighbors TV, radio, etc. Crank it a > little higher > and > > you can actually burn his TV out. Modern solid state > electronics are > not as > > robust as vacuum tube stuff, it takes very little to fry their > electronic > > innards. > > > > Parker's Law: a ten dollar transistor will invariably > protect a ten cent > > fuse by blowing first... > > > > > > > > Lee > > > > __________________________________________ > > "They make a desert and call it peace." > > Tacitus > > > > > > > ______________________________ > How to find me: > AOLIM: Warlord400 > Personal Site: > In progress! > > ______________________________________________________ > Get your free web-based email at http://www.xoom.com > Birthday? Anniversary? Send FREE animated greeting > cards for any occasion at http://greetings.xoom.com > > From VM Mon Jan 24 10:12:12 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["537" "Monday" "24" "January" "2000" "10:39:31" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "14" "starship-design: Missed email" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Missed email" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 537 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18720 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:41:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA18703 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:40:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p477.gnt.com [204.49.91.93]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA25291 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 10:40:51 -0600 Message-ID: <000801bf6689$c2633ee0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Missed email Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 10:39:31 -0600 We had a software failure on a user account here yesterday. when I rebuilt the account I accidentally entered my user information and checked mail, no big deal but then the whole email package crashed with a really strange problem which I haven't been able to solve yet. Consequentially, I lost a days worth of my own email. If anyone sent me anything important, please resend it today. Thanks, Lee __________________________________________ "They make a desert and call it peace." Tacitus From VM Mon Jan 24 14:58:55 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1919" "Monday" "24" "January" "2000" "23:56:22" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "45" "starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1919 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08887 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 14:56:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.48]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08881 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 14:56:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from - (dc2-isdn1059.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.152.35]) by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA00568 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 23:56:41 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000124235622.007228c0@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <200001180114.UAA24331@boo-mda02.boo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 23:56:22 +0100 Hi Connor, Being comitted to things that are at times beyond my control, I had a bit less time to answer your latest reply. >alright, man, I'll do my best. I'm not sure what you mean by beam. >If you are talking about a microwave beam sent from earth or another >part of the balloon, there is none. > ... >I'm not trying to short change you, I honestly don't understand what >you are asking. I'm not good with words, so if you could draw me some >kind of illustration I could probably be of more help. I wasn't assuming that you did not want to understand me. I was merely trying to figure out why you reasoned or felt that this design could work. I was so inquisitive because your design seemed a lot like "something for nothing", which rarely if ever happens. Futhermore it seemed that you created order from randomness, which is difficult to do also. (Ie. accelerating a starship in one direction from randomly directed microwaves.) Your design is too complex to explain for me. (I've tried obvious and less obvious simplifications, but they never become easier to explain.) I also could not find a translation to Steve's design. (Which is relative easy to explain why it works.) Now, rather than to simplify your design, I conclude that there are no inconsistensies in the physics: More photons do leave via the exit than enter via the exit. (As you said all along.) Then by use of the conservation of momentum, I can only conclude that the balloon must get the momentum in the opposite direction of the photons which leave via the exit. I must say that rather than finding no inconsistensies, I would rather have found the exact reason of why your design works. Yet, I think it is just too complex to analyse with ease. This disconfort will likely generate more trouble when you "explain" it to others. I overestimated the ease of proving this design to be false or true. I'm sorry about that. Timothy From VM Mon Jan 24 16:31:38 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["853" "Monday" "24" "January" "2000" "18:26:10" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "21" "RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 853 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA07023 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 16:28:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA07014 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 16:28:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p463.gnt.com [204.49.91.79]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA10443; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:28:19 -0600 Message-ID: <000c01bf66cb$10288b30$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000124235622.007228c0@pop.xs4all.nl> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Timothy van der Linden'" , Subject: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:26:10 -0600 Timothy (in particular), I wasn't privy to much of Connor's conversation with you, but I think I do have a little idea how he intended it to work. Think of an old fashioned laser with a rod of material and a reflector at each end with a flash lamp wrapped around it. The light from the flash lamp comes in from basically all directions and is emitted in only one. His design is very similar except that the mirror is one way and spherical - a semi-permeable membrane, in which microwaves come in from all directions and go out in only one - the hole. Although elegant, I don't believe he will get any net thrust out of it. The momentum vector will still sum to zero if you are using externally supplied radiation as the pumping device. Lee "Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier." -Colin Powell From VM Tue Jan 25 10:06:50 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2532" "Tuesday" "25" "January" "2000" "05:57:53" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "68" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2532 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20061 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 02:58:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA20052 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 02:58:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id z.b8.12182e5 (4334); Tue, 25 Jan 2000 05:57:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 20 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 05:57:53 EST In a message dated 1/23/00 3:06:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: > Subj: starship-design: Re: FTL travel > Date: 1/23/00 3:06:51 PM Pacific Standard Time > From: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca (Ben Franchuk) > Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Reply-to: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca (Ben Franchuk) > To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com > CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > > STAR1SHIP@aol.com wrote: > > > When a object reaches the effective range of the radar it does not need to > > wait for a main bang pulse to arrive as they are continuly sent. The echo > > races toward the reciever at light speed. The radar is an anolog computer > > that takes data from sensors(ear) processes it in real time at light speed > to > > give output. Zero is the processor time unlike digital processors that > take a > > long time to process digital data thus the output is not in realtime(now) > but > > past time(then). Two of your named variable parameters are actually zero > not > > micro seconds so the max velocity detectable is mass at light speed. > > Processing time in Real life is not zero. In the example I used > processing > time for a ACTIVE deflection was 3 us. This requires a speed of 1/3C to > permit > real time processing with this delay. A zap-o laser beam to vaporize > space > dust would not have that delay. > > > Tom > > In a message dated 1/23/00 3:06:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: > > Processing time in Real life is not zero. In the example I used > processing > time for a ACTIVE deflection was 3 us. This requires a speed of 1/3C to > permit You are correct not zero but at light speed the input is converted to output as the time is measured by the time it takes electricity to travel the length of the wire paths in the anolog computer. At that speed the processing time is measured in pico seconds. Your example was a poor one with much greater time than is needed. > real time processing with this delay. A zap-o laser beam to vaporize > space > dust would not have that delay. > Not a bad idea, might use one of them also but you must know that the time needed for an laser to ommit light from the mirror requires it bounce many times between mirrors to develop the energy to lase. Then there is all that gas pumping time under the laser table for the high power lasers consider :=). Better may it be to keep a laser on cleaning a path in front of you. hmmm thinking..... From VM Tue Jan 25 10:06:50 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5725" "Tuesday" "25" "January" "2000" "05:50:17" "-0800" "Fred Reyes" "reyesfred@xoommail.com" nil "165" "RE: starship-design: Wirelss power transmission" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5725 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA15235 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 05:50:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from colo02-060.xoom.com (colo02-060.xoom.com [206.132.185.60]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA15230 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 05:50:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 24740 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2000 13:50:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO www1.xoommail.com) (192.168.1.43) by 192.168.1.46 with SMTP; 25 Jan 2000 13:50:17 -0000 Received: (from service@localhost) by www1.xoommail.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA22182; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 05:50:17 -0800 Message-Id: <200001251350.FAA22182@www1.xoommail.com> X-Loop: xoommail.com Organization: Virtual World: A Gamer's Reality Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Fred Reyes From: Fred Reyes Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Wirelss power transmission Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 05:50:17 -0800 The legalities of our setup are pretty much in good hands. Health concerns, however, are a major issue, since the mobile units are being worn by living beings. That is one of the reasons I want to avoid using microwaves. Our "cage" is a one floor of a five story building. The inner walls have been midified and grounded to provide a radio shield. So far we have not had any problems with the cage itself. The problem is finding a form of wireless power transmission that is not going to cook a human standing in the transmission beam. Long range is not needed at all...the remote units will never leave the building. Something like this could be used in robotics on a starship that won't leave the starship (repair droids, maybe) but will always be on...so batteries are to be avoided if not for backup power. Thanks, Fred "L. Parker" wrote: > Microwave power reception isn't that difficult, most of the parts are > available off the shelf I think. I haven't had anything to do with that > field in over thirty years though. I was simply concerned with the other > ramifications of what you said. If your building is properly shielded, there > isn't really any problem with either the legalities or the safety risks. > > I used to work in a room that was a fifty by fifty cage inside a four foot > thick concrete bunker...our concerns were mostly directed at external > listening devices rather than the FCC or health problems.... > > Lee > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of > > Fred Reyes > > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 9:14 AM > > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > > Subject: RE: starship-design: Wirelss power transmission > > > > > > Would this work if I had multiple crystal receivers operating > > in parallel > > so that more power can be achieved? I think I will require more than > > milliwatts. I am not worried about any radio energy leaving > > the building, > > since our building has been specially built as a faraday cage. Once, > > while working on a contained plasma, we pumped quite a bit of > > radio energy > > into it and got miniscule results outside the building when > > checking for > > leaks. > > > > My ultimate goal here is to have the remote units not require > > any other > > power other than that provided by the matrix as long as they > > remain in > > range. If the units move out of range of the matrix, then they would > > switch to battery power.....but I do not want to rely on > > batteries as the > > main source of power. > > > > Also, there are no hardrives or any other magnetic media in > > the remote > > units....they are composed completely of RAM and ROM (kinda > > like one big > > virtual drive). > > > > Thanks, > > Fred > > > > > > "L. Parker" wrote: > > > > Old crystal radio sets were able to work without any external > > > > power (either > > > > battery or wall plug) simply by converting the > > transmitter's broadcast > > > > power into sound energy. > > > > > > > > If you need more power, take a look at pirate radio > > > > equipment. Provided > > > > you stay out of the actual AM radio band (or other populated > > > > frequenccy > > > > bands,) and don't actually transmit any information, you > > > > shouldn't have to > > > > worry about the FCC. I believe there are certain frequency > > > > ranges which > > > > are reserved for applications like this. > > > > > > Not quite correct...There are some channels set aside for > > hobbyists, but > > > simply not broadcasting a "meaningful" signal will not > > keep you out of > > > trouble with the FCC. > > > > > > Although frequency does relate to possible total power > > output, that > > does not > > > mean that you can't broadcast quite a bit of power at > > lower frequencies. > > > Also, the higher the frequency the closer you come to > > making a microwave > > > oven out of your lab, not a good place to be while working. > > > > > > Then there is your neighbor, no matter what frequency you > > think you are > > > broadcasting on, there are almost always "lobes" or > > sidebands (get a > > good > > > book on RF Radiation), if you crank up the power high > > enough, you will > > start > > > to "bleed" into your neighbors TV, radio, etc. Crank it a > > little higher > > and > > > you can actually burn his TV out. Modern solid state > > electronics are > > not as > > > robust as vacuum tube stuff, it takes very little to fry their > > electronic > > > innards. > > > > > > Parker's Law: a ten dollar transistor will invariably > > protect a ten cent > > > fuse by blowing first... > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee > > > > > > __________________________________________ > > > "They make a desert and call it peace." > > > Tacitus > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________ > > How to find me: > > AOLIM: Warlord400 > > Personal Site: > > In progress! > > > > ______________________________________________________ > > Get your free web-based email at http://www.xoom.com > > Birthday? Anniversary? Send FREE animated greeting > > cards for any occasion at http://greetings.xoom.com > > > > > > ______________________________ How to find me: AOLIM: Warlord400 Personal Site: In progress! ______________________________________________________ Get your free web-based email at http://www.xoom.com Birthday? Anniversary? Send FREE animated greeting cards for any occasion at http://greetings.xoom.com From VM Tue Jan 25 10:06:50 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1279" "Tuesday" "25" "January" "2000" "10:33:57" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "29" "starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1279 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29396 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 07:21:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp7.xs4all.nl (smtp7.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.50]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA29390 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 07:20:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from - (dc2-isdn1219.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.152.195]) by smtp7.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA15158 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 16:20:56 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000125103357.03284c74@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <000c01bf66cb$10288b30$0401a8c0@broadsword> References: <3.0.1.32.20000124235622.007228c0@pop.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 10:33:57 +0100 Hi Lee, Thank you for giving yet another working design. It seems that this lead is going somewhere realistic. >The light from the flash lamp comes in from basically all directions and >is emitted in only one. His design is very similar except that the mirror >is one way and spherical - a semi-permeable membrane, in which microwaves >come in from all directions and go out in only one - the hole. This looks similar, but.. For a laser I know that the photons like to join other photons in doing the same if they have nothing better to do. (Which is thhe general principle of all bosons.) In Connor's design this principle does not seem to be used, all photons continuously have something better to do, and all go their own way, even after they have left the exit. For this matter Steve's design is closer. >Although elegant, I don't believe he will get any net thrust out of it. >The momentum vector will still sum to zero if you are using externally >supplied radiation as the pumping device. Of course the total momentum vector will be zero. But how large is total? In Connor's design, at the end of the voyage, the volume in which the total momentum is conserved has become pretty large. Yet the size is not a solid reason to say (believe) that it won't work. Timothy From VM Tue Jan 25 10:06:50 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1279" "Tuesday" "25" "January" "2000" "10:33:57" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "29" "starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1279 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29396 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 07:21:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp7.xs4all.nl (smtp7.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.50]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA29390 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 07:20:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from - (dc2-isdn1219.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.152.195]) by smtp7.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA15158 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 16:20:56 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000125103357.03284c74@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <000c01bf66cb$10288b30$0401a8c0@broadsword> References: <3.0.1.32.20000124235622.007228c0@pop.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 10:33:57 +0100 Hi Lee, Thank you for giving yet another working design. It seems that this lead is going somewhere realistic. >The light from the flash lamp comes in from basically all directions and >is emitted in only one. His design is very similar except that the mirror >is one way and spherical - a semi-permeable membrane, in which microwaves >come in from all directions and go out in only one - the hole. This looks similar, but.. For a laser I know that the photons like to join other photons in doing the same if they have nothing better to do. (Which is thhe general principle of all bosons.) In Connor's design this principle does not seem to be used, all photons continuously have something better to do, and all go their own way, even after they have left the exit. For this matter Steve's design is closer. >Although elegant, I don't believe he will get any net thrust out of it. >The momentum vector will still sum to zero if you are using externally >supplied radiation as the pumping device. Of course the total momentum vector will be zero. But how large is total? In Connor's design, at the end of the voyage, the volume in which the total momentum is conserved has become pretty large. Yet the size is not a solid reason to say (believe) that it won't work. Timothy From VM Tue Jan 25 10:06:50 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1525" "Tuesday" "25" "January" "2000" "11:00:10" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "32" "RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1525 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA06121 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 09:17:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA06115 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 09:17:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p468.gnt.com [204.49.91.84]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id LAA17089; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:17:16 -0600 Message-ID: <000901bf6758$02e1f910$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000125103357.03284c74@pop.xs4all.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Timothy van der Linden'" , Subject: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:00:10 -0600 Timothy, > Of course the total momentum vector will be zero. But how > large is total? > In Connor's design, at the end of the voyage, the volume in > which the total > momentum is conserved has become pretty large. Yet the size > is not a solid > reason to say (believe) that it won't work. Well, that is the problem. The total momentum (and energy) must be defined in the terms of the system, which as you point out is rather large in this case. I seem to remember that it WAS possible to violate conservation locally as long as you didn't violate it in terms of the larger system. The physics for this are beyond me I'm afraid. Another way to consider it: let's think of this as a pool table where we throw the balls in from outside the table. The balls bounce around randomly transferring energy and momentum with each bump, yet it still sums to zero until the ball finds the single pocket at the end of the table at which point it leaves the local system, transferring useful momentum with its last bump (the one that sent it to the pocket). Locally, we just gained momentum on a vector we wanted (and violated conservation), in terms of the larger system, I believe it will still sum to zero (and preserve conservation). Anybody care to check my reasoning on this? Did I screw up somewhere? BTW, the photons leaving through the exit in his balloon will not necessarily be coherent, nor is there any real need for them to be coherent, as long as they all leave in approximately the same direction - backwards! Lee From VM Tue Jan 25 10:06:50 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["727" "Tuesday" "25" "January" "2000" "09:44:26" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "13" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 727 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA19022 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 09:44:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19017 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 09:44:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA06969 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 09:44:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA09066; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 09:44:29 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14477.57594.695939.717332@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 09:44:26 -0800 (PST) STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > You are correct not zero but at light speed the input is converted to output > as the time is measured by the time it takes electricity to travel the length > of the wire paths in the anolog computer. At that speed the processing time > is measured in pico seconds. Your example was a poor one with much greater > time than is needed. Light travels at about one foot per nanosecond (didn't you ever see Adm. Grace Murray Hopper on TV talk shows handing out wire "nanoseconds"?). Electrical pulses move through wire at somewhat less than this. So the processing time will be much longer than picoseconds in a real system where the computer is located some distance away from its sensors. From VM Tue Jan 25 10:56:18 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1320" "Tuesday" "25" "January" "2000" "13:48:49" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "37" "Re: RE: starship-design: Wirelss power transmission" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1320 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA28092 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 10:49:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28087 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 10:49:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id v.d.95f952 (5726); Tue, 25 Jan 2000 13:48:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: reyesfred@xoommail.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Wirelss power transmission Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 13:48:49 EST In a message dated 1/25/00 7:51:49 AM, reyesfred@xoommail.com writes: >The legalities of our setup are pretty much in good hands. Health >concerns, however, are a major issue, since the mobile units are being > >worn by living beings. That is one of the reasons I want to avoid using > >microwaves. > Our "cage" is a one floor of a five story building. The inner walls > >have been midified and grounded to provide a radio shield. So far we have > >not had any problems with the cage itself. The problem is finding a form > >of wireless power transmission that is not going to cook a human standing > >in the transmission beam. > Long range is not needed at all...the remote units will never leave the > >building. Something like this could be used in robotics on a starship > >that won't leave the starship (repair droids, maybe) but will always be > >on...so batteries are to be avoided if not for backup power. > >Thanks, >Fred If you can certify the room as RF shielded, that solves any FCC issues. So yo u mainly need to find a RF or magnetic induction power transfer system that will transfer enough power with the obstructions and distances involved, and see if the power level can be kept below medical risk thresholds. If not you could operate the systems when humans are locked out. Kelly From VM Tue Jan 25 15:07:30 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1315" "Tuesday" "25" "January" "2000" "17:01:29" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "26" "starship-design: On the balloon thing..." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1315 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA20160 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 15:01:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA20119 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 15:01:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p446.gnt.com [204.49.91.62]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA14224 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:01:47 -0600 Message-ID: <001201bf6788$237f6d30$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: On the balloon thing... Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:01:29 -0600 >From Space Daily, back in early 1999.... "A near-term demonstration was designed that will demonstrated photon propulsion and verify assumptions about the physical properties of thin films for this purpose. Implementation has already been funded and should result in the first laboratory demonstration of levitation by microwave radiation pressure using RF buildup that will produce the electromechanical conversion efficiency necessary. This will develop principles and techniques for future laser- propelled spacecraft. Also, a concept system was proposed for developing an enclosed active region of designer-molecules whose function is to efficiently convert incident sunlight into a coherent, retrodirective microwave or laser beam. The designer-molecules consist of engineered nanostructures having band-gaps that 1) receive solar spectrum photons; 2) nonlinear devices providing charge switches that mix frequencies to provide output photons at laser or microwave frequencies; and 3) resonant-idlers that efficiently store energy at Manley-Rowe Relation frequencies to provide wave shaping with properly phased harmonics that promote efficient energy conversion." Lee __________________________________________ "They make a desert and call it peace." Tacitus From VM Tue Jan 25 15:28:30 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3592" "Tuesday" "25" "January" "2000" "17:21:17" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "71" "starship-design: VASIMR" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3592 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA02065 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 15:21:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA02056 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 15:21:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p446.gnt.com [204.49.91.62]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA18052 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:21:42 -0600 Message-ID: <001701bf678a$ec2097d0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: VASIMR Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:21:17 -0600 Pulled from an old email... ><< >Dr. Chang-Diaz then presented a summary of his research on plasma rocket > >engines and the VASIMR (variable specific impulse magnetic resonance) > >propulsion system.>> > >Chang-Diaz took me on a tour of his lab a couple of years ago, at which time >he gave me a copy of a paper on the VASIMR system so I could annotate it for >"Romance to Reality." He also checked my write-up for accuracy, so I think I >can safely claim that my description is better than the MIT PR. . . > >>>"Rapid Mars Transits with Exhaust-Modulated Plasma Propulsion," Franklin >Chang-Diaz, et al, NASA Technical Paper 3539, March 1995. > >Veteran astronaut Chang-Diaz leads a team at NASA's Johnson Space Center >developing an "advanced (nonchemical)" rocket engine using plasma >heating and magnetic containment technologies derived from nuclear >fusion research. Chang-Diaz commenced work on the design in the early >1980s. Called VASIMR (Variable Specific Impulse Magneto-Plasma Rocket), >the system features a modulated ("tunable") exhaust permitting >high-thrust operation during departure from and arrival in planetary >orbit and gradual shift to continuous low-thrust operation between >planets. The practical upshot is a highly efficient, potentially very >fast propulsion system. According to the authors, exhaust modulation, >first proposed in the 1950s, permits both slow, high-payload cargo >missions and fast, low-payload crew missions using the same rocket >engine. Chemical rocket engines cannot be "tuned" in this manner. >Modulation is made possible through use of a new-technology two-stage >hybrid "magnetic nozzle" instead of a solid matter engine bell. The >engine consists of three magnetic cells. An injector ionizes hydrogen >gas into cold, dense plasma and places it into the forward cell. This >"seed" plasma is heated in the central cell using radio-frequency >radiation beamed by antennas. Upon achieving the desired temperature and >density, the plasma is exhausted through the aft cell, which includes >the hybrid magnetic nozzle. Three nuclear fission reactors provide >redundant electricity for magnetic containment, hydrogen ionization, and >plasma heating. The authors propose three possible mission profiles: > >•Cargo "slowboat" missions are one-way, 180-day automated cargo missions >with payload making up 66 percent of total spacecraft mass. > >•The first piloted Mars mission is a "speedboat" mission profile with >payload making up 2 percent of spacecraft mass, a 101-day outbound >voyage, 30 days on Mars, and a 104-day inbound trip (total mission >duration = 235 days). If difficulties occur within 15 days of Earth >departure the spacecraft can abort back to Earth in 75 days, assuming a >fully functional propulsion system. An abort scenario assuming >accidental loss of all propellant returns the crew to Earth in 180 days. > >•Later Mars missions include a 90-day outbound trip, "winter over" 705 >days on Mars to permit the planets to align for optimum transfer, and a >90-day inbound trip (total duration = 885 days). On the outbound leg >payload can make up 18 percent of total spacecraft mass; on the inbound >leg, payload can total 14 percent. > >The authors propose aerobraking and other techniques to further enhance >the engine's already considerable capabilities.<< > >The *big* problem with this exciting prop tech is the three big fission >reactors, given nuclear energy hysteria. > Lee __________________________________________ "They make a desert and call it peace." Tacitus From VM Tue Jan 25 15:30:10 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1545" "Tuesday" "25" "January" "2000" "15:24:51" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "27" "RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1545 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA03348 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 15:25:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA03342 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 15:24:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA26262 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 15:24:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA10647; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 15:24:53 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14478.12483.785092.404274@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <000901bf6758$02e1f910$0401a8c0@broadsword> References: <3.0.1.32.20000125103357.03284c74@pop.xs4all.nl> <000901bf6758$02e1f910$0401a8c0@broadsword> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: RE: starship-design: Casimir-Foreward balloon Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 15:24:51 -0800 (PST) L. Parker writes: > Well, that is the problem. The total momentum (and energy) must be defined > in the terms of the system, which as you point out is rather large in this > case. I seem to remember that it WAS possible to violate conservation > locally as long as you didn't violate it in terms of the larger system. The > physics for this are beyond me I'm afraid. So far as anyone knows momentum and energy are always conserved in relativistic physics. If you take a group of particles and keep track of them through all their interactions with each other, their total momentum and energy remains the same. If they interact with other particles you didn't initially include, you have to go back and include those other particles in your entire analysis until you have a closed system -- one that does not interact with any parts other than its own. The way this balloon thing or my simpler one-sided mirror example work is that the system is defined to be the balloon or mirror plus all the photons that interact with it considered over a period of time. Starting out you have the balloon or mirror sitting "at rest" (by definition, for our purposes), and a bunch of photons initially uniformly distributed in direction and with no net momentum. At the end you have a moving balloon or mirror, and a now non-uniformly-distributed bunch of photons whose net momentum is now opposite to that of the balloon or mirror. The physics are really quite simple -- and when you get to chapters 7 and 8 of _Spacetime Physics_ you'll see how. From VM Tue Jan 25 16:12:52 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["804" "Tuesday" "25" "January" "2000" "16:05:50" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "13" "starship-design: VASIMR" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 804 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA27869 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 16:05:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA27862 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 16:05:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA07426 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 16:05:57 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA10840; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 16:05:53 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14478.14942.846948.568817@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <001701bf678a$ec2097d0$0401a8c0@broadsword> References: <001701bf678a$ec2097d0$0401a8c0@broadsword> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: starship-design: VASIMR Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 16:05:50 -0800 (PST) While VASIMR looks very promising for interplanetary travel, it is not very promising as a means of achieving even low relativistic speeds. As always the problem is that reaching relativistic speeds with a self-propelled ship requires high fuel-to-payload ratios that can only be partially reduced by using fuels with high energy conversion ratios. Alas, I've just spent a bunch of time going over the existing list archives at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~stevev/sd-archive _and_ the old archives at the metalab.unc.edu (formerly sunsite.unc.edu) web site and discovered that the derivation I posted a long time ago predates the messages available in either location. I need to go over and get greylady.uoregon.edu booted back up one of these days since that may be the only other place I'd have it. From VM Wed Jan 26 10:05:32 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1444" "Tuesday" "25" "January" "2000" "22:23:12" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "37" "RE: starship-design: VASIMR" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1444 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA03623 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 20:26:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA03611 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 20:25:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p462.gnt.com [204.49.91.78]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id WAA10656 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 22:25:57 -0600 Message-ID: <001e01bf67b5$6d3032c0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <14478.14942.846948.568817@tzadkiel.efn.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: RE: starship-design: VASIMR Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 22:23:12 -0600 Oh I am well aware of VASIMR's limitations. Kelly and I discussed them at length early in 99 when it first started showing up in the news. But it is a step, and one step leads to another... BTW, if you run "VASIMR" through the Excite search engine, it will bring up almost all of the old thread on starship-design. Lee > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of Steve > VanDevender > Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 6:06 PM > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: starship-design: VASIMR > > > While VASIMR looks very promising for interplanetary travel, it is not > very promising as a means of achieving even low relativistic > speeds. As > always the problem is that reaching relativistic speeds with a > self-propelled ship requires high fuel-to-payload ratios that can only > be partially reduced by using fuels with high energy > conversion ratios. > > Alas, I've just spent a bunch of time going over the existing list > archives at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~stevev/sd-archive > _and_ the old > archives at the metalab.unc.edu (formerly sunsite.unc.edu) > web site and > discovered that the derivation I posted a long time ago predates the > messages available in either location. I need to go over and get > greylady.uoregon.edu booted back up one of these days since > that may be > the only other place I'd have it. > From VM Wed Jan 26 14:18:22 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["566" "Wednesday" "26" "January" "2000" "17:14:20" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "23" "Re: RE: starship-design: VASIMR" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 566 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA09527 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 14:15:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.72]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA09518 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 14:15:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 4.e2.8ee095 (3994); Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:14:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: VASIMR Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:14:20 EST In a message dated 1/25/00 10:27:31 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >Oh I am well aware of VASIMR's limitations. Kelly and I discussed them >at >length early in 99 when it first started showing up in the news. But it >is a >step, and one step leads to another... It is better to light a single fusion drive then to curse the distence! ;) >BTW, if you run "VASIMR" through the Excite search engine, it will bring >up almost all of the old thread on starship-design. Might want to review some of the Bussard info I put into the web site too. > >Lee Kelly From VM Mon Jan 31 09:41:00 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["664" "Friday" "28" "January" "2000" "19:36:46" "+0100" "Paolo Franchini" "pfranchini@racine.ra.it" nil "21" "re: Re: starship-design: Zero Point Energy" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Zero Point Energy" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 664 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA19115 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 06:03:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from racine.racine.ravenna.it (racine.racine.ravenna.it [193.207.49.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA19103 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 06:03:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from rac6069 (gw1-async-8.racine.ravenna.it [193.207.49.20]) by racine.racine.ravenna.it (8.9.3/8.9.3/Racine04) with ESMTP id PAA11957 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 15:03:17 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200001291403.PAA11957@racine.racine.ravenna.it> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Paolo Franchini" From: "Paolo Franchini" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: re: Re: starship-design: Zero Point Energy Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 19:36:46 +0100 > > > One idea I heard was that virtual partical ALMOST always ae reabsorbed, > but > > sometimes they separte out which can cause new mass creation in the > universe. > > Maybe we can artificially up the odds to get the fuel we want. > > > > Kelly > > > > Is this separation you mention the same as what happens with Hawking > radiation? A virtual particle pair pops into existence very close to the > event horizon of a black hole. One of the particles escapes and the other > doesn't, thereby contributing negative energy to the black hole. > I have read this in the book of S. Hawking "A brief story of time". Paolo Franchini pfranchini@racine.ra.it From VM Mon Jan 31 09:41:00 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["708" "Saturday" "29" "January" "2000" "11:0:22" "-0500" "Connor" "chithree@boo.net" nil "13" "Re: re: Re: starship-design: Zero Point Energy" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Zero Point Energy" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 708 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA03580 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 08:02:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from boo-mda02.boo.net (IDENT:root@[216.200.67.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA03575 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 08:02:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-boonet2-74.boo.net [208.184.99.74]) by boo-mda02.boo.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA08996 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 11:03:41 -0500 Message-Id: <200001291603.LAA08996@boo-mda02.boo.net> Organization: saint|ogden productions X-mailer: FoxMail 3.0 beta 1 [eg] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Connor From: Connor Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: re: Re: starship-design: Zero Point Energy Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 11:0:22 -0500 > Is this separation you mention the same as what happens with Hawking > radiation? A virtual particle pair pops into existence very close to the > event horizon of a black hole. One of the particles escapes and the other > doesn't, thereby contributing negative energy to the black hole. I think that the energy still rounds out to zero, because for every particle that gets trapped inside the event horizon most likely a corrisponding anti particle has gotten trapped in there too. The same goes for the anti particle that got left behind. At most you'd have an imbalance of one or two particles, and personally I doubtthat becuase of all those conservation laws and whatnot. Connor chithree@boo.net From VM Mon Jan 31 09:41:00 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["942" "Saturday" "29" "January" "2000" "10:43:14" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "16" "Re: re: Re: starship-design: Zero Point Energy" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: Zero Point Energy" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 942 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA01058 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 10:43:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01053 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 10:43:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09622 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 10:43:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA09084; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 10:43:23 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14483.13507.5244.501361@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <200001291603.LAA08996@boo-mda02.boo.net> References: <200001291603.LAA08996@boo-mda02.boo.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: Re: re: Re: starship-design: Zero Point Energy Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 10:43:14 -0800 (PST) Connor writes: > > Is this separation you mention the same as what happens with Hawking > > radiation? A virtual particle pair pops into existence very close to the > > event horizon of a black hole. One of the particles escapes and the other > > doesn't, thereby contributing negative energy to the black hole. > > I think that the energy still rounds out to zero, because for every particle that gets trapped > inside the event horizon most likely a corrisponding anti particle has gotten trapped in > there too. The same goes for the anti particle that got left behind. At most you'd have an > imbalance of one or two particles, and personally I doubtthat becuase of all those > conservation laws and whatnot. The energy that creates the virtual particle pair comes from the black hole's gravitational field, so if one of the pair escapes the black hole, the black hole loses its energy. The conservation laws still hold. From VM Mon Jan 31 09:41:00 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5208" "Sunday" "30" "January" "2000" "21:45:36" "-0800" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "95" "starship-design: update.468 (fwd)" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil "starship-design: update.468" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5208 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA24423 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:45:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from jason04.u.washington.edu (root@jason04.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA24416 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:45:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from dante33.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante33.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.215]) by jason04.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW00.01) with ESMTP id VAA42946 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:45:38 -0800 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante33.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id VAA91066 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:45:36 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" From: "N. Lindberg" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship design Subject: starship-design: update.468 (fwd) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:45:36 -0800 (PST) Hi all, Interesting stuff. Enjoy. Nels Lindberg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 16:15:50 -0800 (PST) From: N. Lindberg To: N. Lindberg Subject: update.468 (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 09:51:13 -0500 (EST) From: daemon@u.washington.edu Newsgroups: uwash.physics.grad Subject: update.468 PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 468 January 25, 2000 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein OPTICAL BLACK HOLES, objects that attract and trap specific colors of light, can be made in earthly laboratories, two researchers have shown theoretically, offering possibilities for lab-based analogs of general relativity and potentially even quantum gravity phenomena. According to researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden and at the University of St Andrews in Scotland (Ulf Leonhardt, leonhardt@quantopt.kth.se, 011-46-8-791-1324), the trick is to create a vortex of fluid that whirls at velocities comparable to the speed of light inside the fluid. Such a feat is now possible, with the advent of techniques for slowing down light to just a few meters per second through such substances as a Bose-Einstein condensate (Update 415) or a rubidium gas (Phys. Rev. Focus, 29 June 1999). If a sufficiently fast-spinning vortex of these or similar materials could be created, light inside the fluid could lose maneuverability and become trapped in the vortex. Since light in an optical black hole would behave analogously to matter in a real black hole, these light-trapping whirlpools would permit laboratory study of Hawking radiation, the hypothetical emissions from evaporating black holes; this radiation, which consists of particles made near the hole's boundary, is next-to-impossible to observe directly since it is obscured by the cosmic microwave background. In addition, the researchers speculate that studying quanta of light interacting with the quantum-mechanical matter waves in BECs could even help establish "a testable prototype model of quantum gravity." In the meantime, physicists are also pursuing the idea of creating "acoustical black holes" (dumb holes), regions that capture and trap sound waves. (Leonhardt and Piwnicki, Physical Review Letters, 31 January 2000; Physical Review A, December 1999; Select Articles; also see http://www.st- and.ac.uk/~www_pa/group/quantumoptics/media.html) "THE FORMATION AND EVOLUTION OF GALAXIES are intimately connected to the presence of a central massive black hole," asserts Douglas Richstone of the University of Michigan. Richstone was at the recent meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Atlanta to report the new identification of supermassive black holes at the cores of three nearby elliptical galaxies, adding to an already substantial association between galaxies possessing centralized, high-density spheroidal clumps or bulges of stars and nearby heavy black holes (star concentration correlating closely with black hole mass). Richstone pointed to the growing consensus that these massive black holes are the remnants of quasars (a notion underscored at the meeting by the report given by Andrew Wilson of the University of Maryland--of many "dying quasars" in nearby galaxies, objects whose radio spectra resemble a quieter version of quasar spectra) and to the historical fact that the age of quasar formation occurred before the time when most stars were forming in galaxies (to judge from high redshift observations). Richstone concluded that "Radiation and high-energy particles released by the formation and growth of black holes are the dominant sources of heat and kinetic energy for star-forming gas in protogalaxies." SNOW SCREECHING ON WATER. With its ability to create muffled winter landscapes, snow is usually associated with quiet. When the white stuff falls on a body of water, one would expect it to be just as silent, since it doesn't make much of an impact. But as researchers have discovered, it unexpectedly creates high-pitched screeching sounds that can sometimes disrupt underwater sonar experiments. Investigating these sounds, which last for roughly a ten-thousandth of a second, Larry Crum of the University of Washington (206-685-8622) and his colleagues implicate air bubbles as the source of snowflake noise. According to their explanation, the snowflake's presence on a water surface creates capillary action (the attraction between a liquid and solid surface), causing water to rush upwards. The upward flow of water either generates air bubbles on its own, or unleashes air bubbles in the snowflake as it melts. The bubbles oscillate as they reach equilibrium with their environment, creating sound waves of up to 200 kilohertz--out of the range of human hearing (which stops at 20 kHz) but potentially audible to dolphins. Researchers have been known to shut down sonar surveys of salmon population during snowfall because of these sounds. (Select Article, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, October 1999; see also New Scientist, 25 December 1999.) From VM Tue Feb 8 13:30:26 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4283" "Tuesday" "8" "February" "2000" "21:50:14" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "87" "starship-design: URANOS Club Newsletter No. 4." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4283 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA02665 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 12:50:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA02447 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 12:50:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id VAA06839 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 21:50:14 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200002082050.VAA06839@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: URANOS Club Newsletter No. 4. Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 21:50:14 +0100 (MET) --------------------------------------------------------------- --> http://www.uranos.eu.org/ <-- * * **** *** * * *** **** * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * **** ***** * * * * * *** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * *** * * * * * * *** **** CLUB * for * EXPANSION * of * CIVILIZATION * into * SPACE --------------------------------------------------------------- No. 4 URANOS CLUB NEWSLETTER 07.II.2000 This is the new issue of our irregularly published electronic newsletter. To receive further issues of this newsletter, please send a letter stating so to the address: --------------------------------------------------------------- Changes to the URANOS site: --------------------------- - The layout of biographical pages has been completely redesigned and extended, namely: -- the individual biographies were placed on separate pages, which makes for faster loading and easier navigation; -- new biographies (of M.G. Bekker and K. Siemienowicz), portrait of T. Banachiewicz, as well as English translations of all Polish biographies were added; -- biographies of Banachiewicz, Tsiolkovsky, Hevelius, Copernicus, Sagan, and Wolszczan were supplemented and extended; -- several new biographical notes are in preparation - the names were already placed on the lists in the main biographical pages, to serve as advance notices; -- the quality of some portraits has been improved; -- illustrations depicting important contributions of the given person were included in some of the biographies. - A new page has been aded to the Polish section of the site - entitled "What to do in Poland," it contains an overview of opportunities of active participation in space exploration available currently in Poland. - Many pages have been updated and extended with new data and entries, among others: -- we have added several new entries to the lists of Polish space research institutions and organizations (among others, Solar Observers Society, and Division of Aircraft Engines of Warsaw Technical University - the latter offering lectures on the fundamentals of astronautics and space rocket propulsion); -- we have added many new links to the list of Polish space websites and somewhat reorganized the list; to keep up with the growing number of new Polish sites, unfortunately often of rather low quality, we raised the selection criteria for the list; -- we have added a few interesting new links to the general list of recommended websites; -- we have added two new entries to our list of recommended Polish-language books ("Treasures from Beyond the Earth" by Pilski and "T. Rex and the Crater of Doom" by Alvarez) and updated the information about the "NASA Solar System Atlas"). -- a few new names of space objects of Polish origin were added; -- the list of website developers has been updated, and an acknowledgements section has been added to the "URANOS Group" page, to honor the people who sent us useful data included in the pages. - We have done another round of checking all external links, deleting the dead ones and updating many others. - We have reorganized and corrected all navigation menus; - Many pages have been shortened by deletion of repeated texts. - As usual, we have introduced numerous small improvements and corrected various errors. Other information: ------------------ - We offered space on our webserver for the official site of the Polish Astronautical Society - it should appear there soon. - As a result of our collaboration with the Mars Society Polska (MSP - the Polish Chapter of The Mars Society), our e-mail list started to serve also as an official contact and discussion list for the members of MSP. - The discussion list now counts 43 subscribers. --------------------------------------------------------------- Please forward! From VM Tue Feb 8 15:08:34 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["10468" "Tuesday" "8" "February" "2000" "17:04:56" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "234" "starship-design: RE: Starship Design" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 10468 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA18135 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 15:06:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA18114 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 15:05:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p440.gnt.com [204.49.91.56]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA31171; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 17:05:39 -0600 Message-ID: <006601bf7288$feb75650$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: RE: Starship Design Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 17:04:56 -0600 > -----Original Message----- > From: larryf@dcsmail.com [mailto:larryf@dcsmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 2:09 PM > To: lparker@cacaphony.net > Subject: RE: Starship Design > > > Lee, > > No luck there. Maybe I just didn't know where to look. > > The most complete list of reaction rate data I have found > was the Oak > Ridge National Laboratory/ Astrophysics page. However, the D+Li6 > reaction was ommitted. I'm beginning to think that it might be > classified. > > Let me know I you come across it again. > It would seem that Robert Heeter is in the process of rewriting the FAQ... Is this the information you are looking for?: "*** E. What are the basic fusion reactions? While it is possible to take any two nuclei and get them to fuse, it is easiest to get lighter nuclei to fuse, because they are less highly charged, and therefore easier to squeeze together. There are complicated quantum-mechanics rules which determine which products you will get from a given reaction, and in what amounts ("branching ratios"). The probability that two nuclei fuse is determined by the physics of the collsion, and a property called the "cross section" (see glossary) which (roughly speaking) measures the likelihood of a fusion reaction. (A simple analogy for cross-section is to consider a blindfolded person throwing a dart randomly towards a dartboard on a wall. The likelihood that the dart hits the target depends on the *cross-sectional* area of the target facing the dart-thrower. (Thanks to Rich Schroeppel for this analogy.)) Below is an annotated list of many fusion reactions discussed on the newsgroup. Note: D = deuterium, T = tritium, p = proton, n = neutron; these and the other elements involved are discussed in the glossary/FUT. (FUT = list of Frequently Used Terms; section 10 of the FAQ.) The numbers in parentheses are the energies of the reaction products (in Millions of electron-Volts, see glossary for details). The percentages indicate the branching ratios. More information on each of the elements is given below. Table I: Fusion Reactions Among Various Light Elements D+D -> T (1.01 MeV) + p (3.02 MeV) (50%) -> He3 (0.82 MeV) + n (2.45 MeV) (50%) <- most abundant fuel -> He4 + about 20 MeV of gamma rays (about 0.0001%; depends somewhat on temperature.) (most other low-probability branches are omitted below) D+T -> He4 (3.5 MeV) + n (14.1 MeV) <-easiest to achieve D+He3 -> He4 (3.6 MeV) + p (14.7 MeV) <-easiest aneutronic reaction "aneutronic" is explained below. T+T -> He4 + 2n + 11.3 MeV He3+T -> He4 + p + n + 12.1 MeV (51%) -> He4 (4.8) + D (9.5) (43%) -> He4 (0.5) + n (1.9) + p (11.9) (6%) <- via He5 decay p+Li6 -> He4 (1.7) + He3 (2.3) <- another aneutronic reaction p+Li7 -> 2 He4 + 17.3 MeV (20%) -> Be7 + n -1.6 MeV (80%) <- endothermic, not good. D+Li6 -> 2He4 + 22.4 MeV <- also aneutronic, but you get D-D reactions too. p+B11 -> 3 He4 + 8.7 MeV <- harder to do, but more energy than p+Li6 n+Li6 -> He4 (2.1) + T (2.7) <- this can convert n's to T's n+Li7 -> He4 + T + n - some energy >From the list, you can see that some reactions release neutrons, many release helium, and different reactions release different amounts of energy (some even absorb energy, rather than releasing it). He-4 is a common product because the nucleus of He-4 is especially stable, so lots of energy is released in creating it. (A chemical analogy is the burning of gasoline, which is relatively unstable, to form water and carbon dioxide, which are more stable. The energy liberated in this combustion is what powers automobiles.) The reasons for the stability of He4 involve more physics than I want to go into here. Some of the more important fusion reactions will be described below. These reactions are also described in Section 2 in the context of their usefulness for energy-producing fusion reactors." More interesting is the following section: "*** G. Why is the deuterium-tritium (D-T) reaction the easiest? Basically speaking, the extra neutrons on the D and T nuclei make them "larger" and less tightly bound, and the result is that the cross-section for the D-T reaction is the largest. Also, because they are only singly-charged hydrogen isotopes, the electrical repulsion between them is relatively small. So it is relatively easy to throw them at each other, and it is relatively easy to get them to collide and stick. Furthermore, the D-T reaction has a relatively high energy yield. However, the D-T reaction has the disadvantage that it releases an energetic neutron. Neutrons can be difficult to handle, because they will "stick" to other nuclei, causing them to (frequently) become radioactive, or causing new reactions. Neutron-management is therefore a big problem with the D-T fuel cycle. (While there is disagreement, most fusion scientists will take the neutron problem and the D-T fuel, because it is very difficult just to get D-T reactions to go.) Another difficulty with the D-T reaction is that the tritium is (weakly) radioactive, with a half-life of 12.3 years, so that tritium does not occur naturally. Getting the tritium for the D-T reaction is therefore another problem. Fortunately you can kill two birds with one stone, and solve both the neutron problem and the tritium-supply problem at the same time, by using the neutron generated in the D-T fusion in a reaction like n + Li6 -> He4 + T + 4.8 MeV. This absorbs the neutron, and generates another tritium, so that you can have basically a D-Li6 fuel cycle, with the T and n as intermediates. Fusing D and T, and then using the n to split the Li6, is easier than simply trying to fuse the D and the Li6, but releases the same amount of energy. And unlike tritium, there is a lot of lithium available, particularly dissolved in ocean water. Unfortunately you can't get every single neutron to stick to a lithium nucleus, because some neutrons stick to other things in your reactor. You can still generate as much T as you use, by using "neutron multipliers" such as Beryllium, or by getting reactions like n + Li7 -> He4 + T + n (which propagates the neutron) to occur. The neutrons that are lost are still a problem, because they can induce radioactivity in materials that absorb them. This topic is discussed more in Section 2." My original post delt more with aneutronic fusion, which is described in more detail in: "*** H. What is aneutronic fusion? Some researchers feel the advantages of neutron-free fusion reactions offset the added difficulties involved in getting these reactions to occur, and have coined the term "aneutronic fusion" to describe these reactions. The best simple answer I've seen so far is this one: (I've done some proofreading and modified the notation a bit.) [ Clarifying notes by rfheeter are enclosed in brackets like this.] >From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) >Risto Kaivola wrote: [[ Sorry I don't have the date or full reference for this anymore; this article appeared in sci.physics.fusion a few months ago.]] >>Basically, what is aneutronic fusion? The term aneutronic >>confuses me considerably. Could you give me an example of >>an aneutronic fusion reaction? How could energy be produced >>using such a reaction? Can there be a fusion reaction in which >>a neutron is never emitted? > >Examples: > >D + He3 --> He4 + p + 18.1MeV >(deuteron + helium-3 --> helium-4 + proton + energy) > >p + Li6 --> He4 + He3 + 4.0MeV >(proton + lithium-6 --> helium-4 + helium-3 + energy) > >D + Li6 --> 2 He4 + 22.4MeV >(deuteron + lithium-6 --> 2 helium-4's + energy) > >p + B11 --> 3 He4 + 8.7Mev >(proton + boron-11 --> 3 helium-4's + energy) > >All of these reactions produce no neutrons directly. [[ Hence "aneutronic." ]] >There are also other reactions that have multiple branches possible, >some of which do not produce neutrons and others that do >(e.g., D + D, p + Li7). > >The question is how do you get a "reactor" going and not get >any neutrons. There are 2 hurdles here. The first is getting the >fuel to smack together hard enough and often enough for fusion >to occur. >The easiest fusion reaction is D + T --> He4 + n (the D-T fuel >cycle). A magnetic reactor can initiate fusion in one of these >things at about a temperature of 10keV. [1 keV = 1000 eV = 11,000,000 (degrees) kelvin, more or less]. >The other reactions require much higher temperatures (for example >about 50KeV for the D+He3 reaction). This is a big factor of 5. >The second hurdle is neutron production via "trash" (secondary) >reactions. That is, the main reaction may be neutron-free, >but there will be pollution reactions that may emit neutrons. [ The products of the main reaction, e.g. He3, can be trapped in your reactor temporarily, and fuse with other ions in the system in messy ways. ] >Even if this is only a few percent, it can lead to big neutron >emission. For example, the D+He3 reaction will also have some D+D >reactions occuring. [ Because in your reactor you will have a lot of Ds and He3s, and the Ds will collide with each other as well as with the He3s. ] >At 50Kev temperatures, the reaction >cross-section for D+D reactions is about 1/2 of the D+He3 >cross-section, so there will be some generation of neutrons from >the 50% branch reaction of D + D-->He3 + n. >Also, the other 50% goes to T+p, The triton (T) will then undergo >a D-T reaction and release another neutron. [ Because the cross-section for D-T reactions is much higher.] >If the reactor is optmized (run in a He3 rich mode) the number >of neutrons can be minimized. The neutron power can be as low >as about 5% of the total. However, in a 1000 megawatt reactor, >5% is 50 MW of neutron power. That is [still] a lot of neutron >irradiation. This lower neutron level helps in designing >structural elements to withstand neutron bombardment, but it >still has radiation consequences. > >On the other hand, it is my understanding that the p-B11 reaction >is completely neutron free, but of course it is much harder >to light." More can be found at: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/fusion-faq/section1-physics/ which is the older version of the FAQ. I hope this helps, and it is now forever enshrined in our archive of the list . Lee Parker From VM Thu Feb 17 09:55:31 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["789" "Thursday" "17" "February" "2000" "11:54:08" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "23" "starship-design: Re: Updated Link" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 789 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA00296 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:54:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA00290 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:54:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id c.84.1946457 (4327); Thu, 17 Feb 2000 11:54:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <84.1946457.25dd81b0@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: d.burkhead@worldnet.att.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Updated Link Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 11:54:08 EST I'll pass it on, but I don't have direct access to the site anymore, so I can't fix the problem. Sorry. Kelly In a message dated 2/16/00 9:32:51 PM, d.burkhead@worldnet.att.net writes: >Just to let you know that the Link for the SpaceCub FAQ is long, long >outdated. The current link, where you can reach the FAQ and much other >information, is: http://www.sff.net/people/dburkhead/spacecub.htm > >David L. Burkhead "Dum vivimus, vivamus!" >Advanced Surface Microscopy, Inc. "While we live, let us LIVE!" >mailto:d.burkhead@worldnet.att.net >http://www.sff.net/people/dburkhead > Space -- Japanese Animation -- History -- Science Fiction > '72 Mustang >disclaimer: none of the opinions in this message are necessarily > those of ASM, Inc. From VM Fri Feb 18 09:52:59 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6415" "Thursday" "17" "February" "2000" "21:31:12" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "141" "Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6415 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA16696 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 18:31:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA16687 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 18:31:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.a7.1b68617 (3968); Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:31:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 20 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:31:12 EST In a message dated 1/24/00 5:11:22 AM Pacific Standard Time, Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM writes: > Subj: RE: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity > Date: 1/24/00 5:11:22 AM Pacific Standard Time > From: Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM (Walker, Chris) > Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Reply-to: Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM (Walker, Chris) > To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com ('STAR1SHIP@aol.com') > CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu ('Starship Design') > > Hi Tom, > > > Please, Do not call my "Electric Armor" by any other name such as SMA > shell. > > Name your own inventions if you wish not mine. Your suggested name SMA > reminds me > > of government jargon and I do my best to be jargon free in speech. > > Should your name catch on by accident... > > Not my name! Industry-standard acronym. Just felt it described the invention > more precisely (ie. it's a shield made from a shape memory alloy). But, like > you say, it's your invention not mine. Yes - I do realise that many people > may very well not have heard of the acronym and so you wish to avoid using > this jargon in a broad public context. However, I was using it for shorthand > for this mailing list. I did not invent the alloy, I invented the electric armor as I discovered what happened when the restoring force (heat or electrical current) was applied during or before the deforming force unlike the thousands of other inventions filed with each of those applying the restorative force after the deformation. Visualize a car door panel of electric armor dented by a kicking foot. I found it more fun to break the foot than simply watch the dent pop out. The foot will see the door panel as 1/4 " thick steel instead of the 1/32 " sheet metal. Thus increasing the "effective" thickness of the metal without the added mass making it ideal for space ship protection. > I was just thinking about the material fatigue issues. For example, say you > have an average of one particle impact every second. For a year-long > mission, you will have over 30 million impacts to deal with. This means 30M+ > thermal and mechanical cycles that the electric armour will undergo. I'm no > materials scientist (you guessed? ;) but I think that fatigue failure would > be likely to occur more than once per year in this case, leading to frequent > replacements. > > So, why not just use a big lump of material instead? Then, you just have to > deal with the erosion effects - needs replacing less often. Presumably, you > feel that the electric armour offers a sufficiently greater advantage to be > worthwhile using? As I said above in other words each pound not sent to the stars will result in another like each pound of your flesh. I do not believe you are familiar with the rain drop effect from laws of probability in particle collisions. The faster speed eliminates most of the erosion you fear. There is also no "flexing" cycles to consider causing fatigue because the armor does not deform and than change back to the original shape. The physical stress is on the colliding particle. > > > Then and only then will I chose or not to replace the many pieces that > have > > been replaced periodically in routine maintenance. > > Fair enough. Out of curiosity, do you envisage carrying the replacement > materials with you (costly), or manufacturing them on the voyage (eg. from > mining passing asteroids or planets)? For a star journey most systems will be triple redundant including the engine. Forges and mining equipment along with machine shops would be expected to handle the same skills required in colonization of an inhabitable world for an indefinite time. An earth like environment would be nice to find but not necessary for survival. > > I have addressed all the issues many years ago you raise now. I value your > > > feedback and hope to complete a FAQ(jargonsorry). That I can refer new > readers > > of my patent from 1988. > > Would be a good idea. You may have addressed all the issues, but we don't > know your solutions until we ask ;) See FAQ, for now, remains ..see links... ------ The US Patent Office has determined (Oct 13,1988) the subject matter ( Plasma Rocket Engine ) of my application to: be "useful in the production or utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy" as recited in 42 U.S.C. 2182 (Department of Energy(DOE)). "have significant utility in the conduct of aeronautical and space activities" as recited in 42 U.S.C 2457 (National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)). The attached U.S. disclosure document No.210758 " A Definitive Analysis of Atomic Power " containing my bomb design "Genie Bottler" was filed Sept 19th 1988. The document contains the first working diagram of my plasma rocket engine invention > > You do worry a lot you need to get out more. > > As a spacecraft subsystem engineer by trade (attitude and orbital control), > it's a job requirement to be conservative and worry about problems, both > likely and unlikely. My question (though intended more tounge-in-cheek as a > dig towards NASA's recenet "mishap") dealt with a simple risk assesment > issue. The chances of a launch going wrong and sending the craft towards > Earth may be low, but the consequences are very serious indeed. Some of my training in inertial guidance systems for the B52 (Journeyman level autopilot mechanic) parallels yours somewhat and I also try and anticipate problems before they occur. The consequences you fear seem to assume that I claim to have a craft that goes form launch to light speed or greater in a very short amount of time. This is strictly forbidden by Special Relativity. My craft takes a year(356 days) to reach that velocity accelerating at one g. A 105 ton craft launched from the moon and misdirected towards earth would leave a very small impact crater. > > Get out more to where? ;) Well, If you have net meeting 3.01 with video cam and mic and since I have high speed cable modem, I would offer to give you a personalized tour ride on my star ship and laboratories, but I usually reserve that for the ladies. Would Chris be short for Christine? :) Regards, Tom > Regards, > > Chris From VM Fri Feb 18 09:52:59 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3358" "Thursday" "17" "February" "2000" "23:03:53" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "74" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3358 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13668 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:05:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA13663 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:05:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id s.ac.17b1b0e (3968); Thu, 17 Feb 2000 23:03:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 20 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stevev@efn.org CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 23:03:53 EST In a message dated 1/23/00 1:37:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, stevev@efn.org writes: > STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > > > Einstein taught what I teach about the possibility of faster than > > light graft. Your physics that you know cannot get there period. The > > New knowledge that I bring to this group is Einsteins non publized > > teachings of 1955 plus my new inventon knowledge that you could not > > of possibly know about. > > Please give a citation for these writings of Einstein that you believe > justify your position. At best they are quite at odds with everything > else Einstein wrote about relativity. If you claim that no one else can > see them because they are "non-publized" (sic) then you should not > expect us to believe that they exist or that they say what you claim > they say. Would like to give you the citation but it was inadvertently thrown out along with many text books and personal papers by stepfather when I enlisted in the Air Force. The significant text parts were in my memory banks and the name and title were not. If you require a literary reference then use. A Definitive Analysis of Atomic Power No apology here but you need only rely on my superior education relativistic to your education. With a silly assumption you have a Ph.D. with some 3500 classroom hours since high school and have met the minimum grade point average, I have 8000+ class hours (1 semester =16 hours class or 32 hours lab or 72 hours formal on job training) then credibility may be established with my lawful signature of. Doctor Thomas Hulon Jackson, Common Law Doctorates Math, Physics, Computer Science, General Education > > > If you do not know how to read patent applications than consult an > > attorney. > > The patent office has never consistently taken physical reality into > account when reviewing or granting patent applications. One is not > required to build a prototype to get a patent, and the existence of a > patent is not proof that a concept is physically realizable. Inventors normally do not build an invention to see if it works but instead know that it works and then they build it. Simple machines such as rocket engine rarely require building to obtain a patent. When a working diagram does not violate known law of physics it is considered made and working. I had to evaluate all atomic rocket engines invented and show that mine was a significant improvement over the prior art. Skepticism is not considered proof of an invention not working by reasonable men nor even good science as the burden of nonworking proof is on you. > > As I said, this mailing list is for discussing how to achieve > interstellar travel with what we do know about physics. This has > disappointed more than previous subscriber with fanciful ideas. You cannot get to the stars with the physics that you as a part of your alleged what "we" know about physics. It is about time you tried some new knowledge(patentable). Mine. Your fanciful claimed "Borg collective con-science(spelling intentional)" of speaking for "we physicists" is such non scientific nonsense I am surprised I responded. Your Academic Superior, Na Na Na Na Na > From VM Fri Feb 18 09:52:59 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1235" "Friday" "18" "February" "2000" "11:52:49" "-0000" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "28" "RE: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1235 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA07925 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 03:54:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns0.sky.co.uk (mail.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.170]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA07915 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 03:54:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from ost_exch_bhs01.bskyb.com (ost_exch_bhs01 [195.153.219.190]) by ns0.sky.co.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23508 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:47:56 GMT Received: from ost_exch_bhs02.bskyb.com (unverified) by ost_exch_bhs01.bskyb.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:52:49 +0000 Received: by OST_EXCH_BHS02 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <1X47X534>; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:52:35 -0000 Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Walker, Chris" From: "Walker, Chris" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'STAR1SHIP@aol.com'" Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:52:49 -0000 Tom, > There is also no "flexing" cycles to consider causing fatigue because the > armor does not deform and than change back to the original shape. > The physical stress is on the colliding particle. No thermal fatigue cycling then, either? > The consequences you fear seem to assume that I claim to have a > craft that goes from launch to light speed or greater in a very > short amount of time ... A 105 ton craft launched from the moon > and misdirected towards earth would leave a very small impact crater. Ah, a misunderstanding. The consquences I was referring to was a load of radioactive material being deposited at high speed on the Earth (if the craft was misdirected), not the effects of the craft's physical impact. I mentioned it originally because you referred to your design as being "the safest" - I questioned this given that it used a radioactive fuel source. > Well, If you have net meeting 3.01 with video cam and mic and since I have > high speed cable modem, I would offer to give you a personalized tour ride > on my star ship and laboratories, but I usually reserve that for the ladies. > Would Chris be short for Christine? :) No - so I guess I'll have to turn down the offer of that date ;) Chris From VM Mon Feb 21 10:16:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4117" "Saturday" "19" "February" "2000" "20:20:41" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "84" "Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4117 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA17884 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 17:21:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA17872 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 17:21:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.36.2591e10 (3969); Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:20:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36.2591e10.25e09b69@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 20 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL and Special Relativity Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:20:41 EST In a message dated 2/18/00 3:54:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM writes: > Tom, > > > There is also no "flexing" cycles to consider causing fatigue because the > > armor does not deform and than change back to the original shape. > > The physical stress is on the colliding particle. > > No thermal fatigue cycling then, either? Hey Cris, Thanks for the input. I had not thought about it. I know that aluminum wire deteriorates with current constantly applied voltage making it unsuitable for homes in 10 years time so I will rely on your trade skills and make sure that I test for that during the engineering phase of development. The stress is on the electrical field holding the electric armor molecules in position so the current being constantly changed would not have fatigue but it may be possible the stress could be induced into the molecular bonds in an unknown manner so I will test for that. > > The consequences you fear seem to assume that I claim to have a > > craft that goes from launch to light speed or greater in a very > > short amount of time ... A 105 ton craft launched from the moon > > and misdirected towards earth would leave a very small impact crater. > > Ah, a misunderstanding. The consquences I was referring to was a load of > radioactive material being deposited at high speed on the Earth (if the > craft was misdirected), not the effects of the craft's physical impact. I > mentioned it originally because you referred to your design as being "the > safest" - I questioned this given that it used a radioactive fuel source. Well, radioactive is a scary word but since my engine can safely move all toxic radioactive byproducts on earth to a lower solar orbit, It could be a worthwhile and reasonable risk. The fore mentioned 105 ton craft, to propel a 5 ton payload to reach twice light speed need only convert 1/2 ton of americium to energy to give the energy propeling the exhaust to the required velocity. Such a lump would land intact and be locatable and reusable. To place all earth radioactive toxins in orbit and decrease the solor orbit velocity to where they drop nearer the sun in perpetual lower orbit would require maybe a little more matter conversion doing the math in my head. It should be a safety required launch as it is only a matter of time before terrorist figure out that atomic reactors and toxic radioactive dump sites make ideal targets for small homemade atomic bombs and other attacks to increase their devastating short and long term effects by bypassing "all" known safety systems except low solar orbit. Germans tried to dispose of radioactive barium waste from reactors by injecting by rocket into the high atmosphere over the US soutwest as it was luminesent and allow testing to "see weather patterns" That plus the US government labeling what should be unallowable safety radioactive releases as planned waste (no waste plan) and scheduled releases (vents scheduled to release radioactive toxins with over pressure) can only work on the public for a short amount of time as you can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all the people all of the time. > > > Well, If you have net meeting 3.01 with video cam and mic and since I have > > high speed cable modem, I would offer to give you a personalized tour ride > > on my star ship and laboratories, but I usually reserve that for the > ladies. > > Would Chris be short for Christine? :) > > No - so I guess I'll have to turn down the offer of that date ;) Oh well, what a shame the technology fields I found so exciting are nearly devoid of qualified women. The idea of lifetime voyages without equal numbers of fairer sex may condemn any star travel as impracticable. That imbalance I have no solution for 'cept take as many family and friends as possible since cost per pound to stars would be reasonable with my work horse engine. Any other reasonable suggestions as star travel is no place for girlie boys?:) Tom > Chris > From VM Mon Feb 21 10:16:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2442" "Saturday" "19" "February" "2000" "18:00:05" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "49" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2442 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA26145 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 18:00:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA26133 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 18:00:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA25740 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 18:00:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA04742; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 18:00:07 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14511.19109.241451.291240@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 18:00:05 -0800 (PST) STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > > Please give a citation for these writings of Einstein that you believe > > justify your position. At best they are quite at odds with everything > > else Einstein wrote about relativity. If you claim that no one else can > > see them because they are "non-publized" (sic) then you should not > > expect us to believe that they exist or that they say what you claim > > they say. > > Would like to give you the citation but it was inadvertently thrown > out along with many text books and personal papers by stepfather when > I enlisted in the Air Force. I just knew you'd say something like that. Like I said, if you think Einstein backs you up but can't cite a work that we can read and verify then we have no reason to believe you about that. > Skepticism is not considered > proof of an invention not working by reasonable men nor even good science as > the burden of nonworking proof is on you. Build your invention and prove that it works. I have no reason to believe you if you don't do what you say you can do. I don't have to prove you wrong; you have to prove yourself right, not just by words or trying to impress us with titles, but by actions. Nobody can prove that FTL is impossible at this point, but no one has proved that it is possible either. The best proof of its possibility is for someone to do it. Until someone does the focus of this mailing list will not be on trying to build starships using unknown and currently unknowable properties of FTL drives, but on building starships that work by proven principles. > Your fanciful claimed "Borg collective con-science(spelling intentional)" of > speaking for "we physicists" is such non scientific nonsense I am surprised I > responded. Science is inherently collective thinking, in the sense that the truth of a theory isn't determined by one person holding forth that it is so, but by other people being able to verify the theory for themselves. You misquote me in claiming that I'm speaking for physicists; I'm speaking about what they have come to understand about physics so far. > Your Academic Superior, > Na Na Na Na Na You're not helping your credibility by name-calling or tossing around titles. If what you say makes sense and agrees with reality, we'll believe you. If you spout nonsense and bluster about how you must be right because you're more educated than we are, then we won't. From VM Mon Feb 21 10:16:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7295" "Sunday" "20" "February" "2000" "00:40:43" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "155" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7295 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA28459 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 21:41:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA28450 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 21:41:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id s.38.26253e9 (6964); Sun, 20 Feb 2000 00:40:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <38.26253e9.25e0d85b@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 20 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stevev@efn.org CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 00:40:43 EST In a message dated 2/19/00 6:00:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, stevev@efn.org writes: > STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > > > Please give a citation for these writings of Einstein that you believe > > > justify your position. At best they are quite at odds with everything > > > else Einstein wrote about relativity. If you claim that no one else > can > > > see them because they are "non-publized" (sic) then you should not > > > expect us to believe that they exist or that they say what you claim > > > they say. > > > > Would like to give you the citation but it was inadvertently thrown > > out along with many text books and personal papers by stepfather when > > I enlisted in the Air Force. > > I just knew you'd say something like that. Wow, Now you are a psychic. I speak what I know to be true. Were I dishonest I would have not made the patent claim 7 for it would have made the patent examination less costly by thousands of dollars. Einstein was so fearful of what he had to say about taking responsibility for inventing the atomic bomb and how it worked he dictated his 1955 work to a women who specialized writing physics books for children and had here place his words in her juvenile book to avoid government censors for he spoke of things others were to be executed for during that time. It was the Macarthy era and the climate of fear dominated discussions of atomic bomb details. What Einstein said started me on my search for the machine to obtain the super light velocities he predicted were possible. The female author waited fro fear until 62 or 63 to publish. Fearful myself, I burned the atomic bomb diagrams I had written from his work and my note books. I kept only the library book checkout cards from my school library and committed my work to memory for without the written work (used to execute Rosenbergs) so I figured I was safe from execution. Those library references were thrown out. Research and documentation to meet your naive standards was impossible at the time. Deal with it but you cannot ignore it simply because you do not know about it. For it did happen and his work will resurface as it has many time since. Examples: 1. Instructor at FAA academy in 1968 taught me Einstein's impact bomb plans for the third time. (The first was my uncle who built them for the Air Force) 2. Explosive ordinance manual reference book inadvertently published by US government printing office (1977) the impact bomb formulas I have published. 3. Found web page of Einstein's taking credit for invention and the reasons he told Fermi how to build the bomb in a ten minute telephone(1938) conversation. (Erased favorite link when switched from AOL 4.0 to 5.0) Like I said, if you think > Einstein backs you up but can't cite a work that we can read and verify > then we have no reason to believe you about that. Wrong, I can cite without reference in any A Definitive Analysis of ... books for they are written from memory after years of study without bibliography as they are never required. You have no reason not to believe me. I have no reason to lie. > > > Skepticism is not considered > > proof of an invention not working by reasonable men nor even good science > as > > the burden of nonworking proof is on you. > > Build your invention and prove that it works. I have no reason to > believe you if you don't do what you say you can do. I don't have to > prove you wrong; you have to prove yourself right, not just by words or > trying to impress us with titles, but by actions. Any idiot can take your position and sit in easy chair expecting any that has knowledge you do not to do all the work of proof. I do not buy your nonsense. Any valid objective scientific examination of work requires the examiner to undergo the same rigorous test for his beliefs that the examinee does. You have failed to prove a faster than light limit for rockets so have no say in the validity of faster than light claims. > > Nobody can prove that FTL is impossible at this point, but no one has > proved that it is possible either. The best proof of its possibility is > for someone to do it. Nonsense. I have proven it many ways by logic and math. Objective scientific examination does not allow the examiner to say what proof is acceptable to him but he must examine the proof available as the case merits. Until someone does the focus of this mailing list > will not be on trying to build starships using unknown and currently > unknowable properties of FTL drives, but on building starships that work > by proven principles. You obviously have not read my patent application and the proven principles it works on. Visualize a small reactor placed in a hole in a three mile thick arctic ice sheet. Remove the control rods causing a melt down. My rocket exhaust comes out of that hole. If you think nothing comes out of the hole from the well known principle of the China syndrome than you are a bigger fool than your previous responses would indicate. > > Your fanciful claimed "Borg collective con-science(spelling intentional)" > of > > speaking for "we physicists" is such non scientific nonsense I am > surprised I > > responded. > > Science is inherently collective thinking, in the sense that the truth > of a theory isn't determined by one person holding forth that it is so, > but by other people being able to verify the theory for themselves. That is one valid method but not the only one. You would have to physically to the library and do the research to verify. It is much easier to sit in your easy chair being a skeptic expecting others to do the work proving something to you as you are to lazy to do it for your self. > You > misquote me in claiming that I'm speaking for physicists; I'm speaking > about what they have come to understand about physics so far. You are not speaking for the many physicists and mathematicians that have taught me over years that is for sure. Understand my work and you can go farther than misconceptions and misinformation you have not abandoned. I myself have little desire to teach the mistaught unless they are willing to listen. > > > Your Academic Superior, > > Na Na Na Na Na > > You're not helping your credibility by name-calling or tossing around > titles. If what you say makes sense and agrees with reality, we'll > believe you. Then believe me. > If you spout nonsense and bluster about how you must be >right because you're more educated than we are, then we won't. That is fair enough but then do not dare to think because I believe in faster than light velocities for rockets that it must be because I do not know something you do. Your arrogance has no place in scientific investigation into the possibiliities of star flight. The only reason I publish my creditials is because they are documented and verifiable and would indicate to the most reasonalble men that I just might know something you do not not. Deal with it. You must accept you have an empty memory bank before your learning and comprehension centers will fill it with new knowledge. Best Regards, Tom MATH PROOFS From VM Mon Feb 21 10:16:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2396" "Saturday" "19" "February" "2000" "22:18:59" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "39" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2396 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA01608 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 22:19:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA01603 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 22:19:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA09881 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 22:19:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA05574; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 22:19:09 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14511.34643.301374.696712@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <38.26253e9.25e0d85b@aol.com> References: <38.26253e9.25e0d85b@aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 22:18:59 -0800 (PST) Good scientists don't justify their work by citing works that they will not show to anyone else. Good scientists don't say that you have to prove them wrong; if they are right, then they can prove themselves right by experiment and so can others. Good scientists can explain their theories without resorting to "I know more than you do, so just shut up" or calling those who disagree with them miseducated brainwashed fuddie-duddies. If you think you understand physics better than other physicists, then you can prove them wrong -- but only if you make a repeatable experiment that shows how. When we formed this list, we agreed that starships will be built by engineering and not just theorizing. So we also agreed that trying to design a ship around scientifically unproven principles would be a pointless exercise, and since faster-than-light motion of mass has not been experimentally demonstrated there's no way to figure out how to engineer a ship that can go faster than light. Atomic fission and fusion are _experimentally_ proven. The existence and properties of antimatter are _experimentally_ proven. We honestly can't say whether FTL is possible or not, because no one has ever demonstrated it experimentally. Until it's been proven possible and the engineering properties of an FTL drive can be determined, there's just no way to build it into a ship. If you can demonstrate it experimentally, then do so. If you can't, please understand that we won't accept it until you do. I looked over your "proof" of the possibility of FTL. Sadly it's a jumble of equations and statements with no logical flow. And some of its assumptions seem to be wrong, like the justifying claim that one can accelerate an object to light speed in about a year, which uses the Newtonian rather than the relativistic equations for accelerated motion. Saying that you can reach high relativistic velocities using a drive powered by nuclear fission is similarly dubious. Achieving high relativistic velocities requires tremendous amounts of energy, and nuclear fusion is barely capable of achieving the necessary energy yield, and requires thousands to millions of times as much fusion fuel as payload. In theory, sure, a fission-powered rocket could get to the same velocities, but only with absolutely incredible amounts of fission fuel, at least billions of times the mass of the payload. From VM Mon Feb 21 10:16:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["174" "Sunday" "20" "February" "2000" "12:22:59" "-0500" "Connor" "chithree@boo.net" nil "5" "Re: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 174 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA23917 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 09:25:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from boo-mda02.boo.net (IDENT:root@[216.200.67.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA23911 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 09:25:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer (ppp-boonet2-106.boo.net [208.184.99.106]) by boo-mda02.boo.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA00656 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:21:01 -0500 Message-Id: <200002201721.MAA00656@boo-mda02.boo.net> Organization: saint|ogden productions X-mailer: FoxMail 3.0 beta 1 [eg] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Connor From: Connor Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:22:59 -0500 You couldn't hear it, STAR1SHIP, but I went "ungh!" when I read Steve's last post. You can't win. Can we get back to either science or silence now? Connor chithree@boo.net From VM Mon Feb 21 10:16:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7330" "Sunday" "20" "February" "2000" "21:24:34" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "150" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7330 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA25209 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:25:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA25198 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:25:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id s.7e.1658b55 (4339); Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:24:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <7e.1658b55.25e1fbe2@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 20 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stevev@efn.org CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:24:34 EST In a message dated 2/19/00 10:20:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, stevev@efn.org writes: > Good scientists don't justify their work by citing works that they will > not show to anyone else. Steve, I did not cite the work, you requested a citation and I gave you all I had and attacked by you when I did as you requested. Good scientists don't say that you have to > prove them wrong; if they are right, then they can prove themselves > right by experiment and so can others. Experimental proof is only one of many proofs available for science. I gave you a repeatable experiment in my patent application that can be verified. Your looking at it and not doing it shows you are not interested in verification but only speak loudly in support of your own. philosophies Good scientists can explain > their theories without resorting to "I know more than you do, so just > shut up" or calling those who disagree with them miseducated brainwashed > fuddie-duddies. Recall your previous(and present) attitude to any member that professes no light speed limit ffor rockets. You can have no complaint about my attitude display. If you think you understand physics better than other > physicists, then you can prove them wrong -- but only if you make a > repeatable experiment that shows how. I gave you the repeatable experiment Transporter Room< /A> and all the details you need to construct it. > When we formed this list, we agreed that starships will be built by > engineering and not just theorizing. So we also agreed that trying to > design a ship around scientifically unproven principles would be a > pointless exercise, and since faster-than-light motion of mass has not > been experimentally demonstrated there's no way to figure out how to > engineer a ship that can go faster than light. Speak for your self as I engineered the ship. You not knowing a way means nothing. speaking in the "We" voice you do implies a consensus of opinion that is not evident. Were such a total consensus existing then it would fail for the members could not possible get to the stars for good science requires diversity of opinions for the discovery of new knowledge. Do not refer to my knowledge as theory for it is applied physics. Your thesis is what is theory and not fact. Atomic fission and > fusion are _experimentally_ proven. The existence and properties of > antimatter are _experimentally_ proven. I will use some of you better logic to disprove that statement. You imply in 1945 the public press releases on who invented the bomb and how it worked was released. That makes no sense for then there would have been no secret of fission and fusion after that time. The nonsense is evident. People are still being jailed for discussing it. The experimental device was and remains unexamined and not repeated in public as you would require for proof. Nucleus of protons and neutrons violate what is known world wide as universal law of "like charges repel". Anti matter theories based on those "theories" fall by default. We honestly can't say whether > FTL is possible or not, because no one has ever demonstrated it > experimentally. Until it's been proven possible and the engineering > properties of an FTL drive can be determined, there's just no way to > build it into a ship. That I did it proves your statement wrong. Your problem was the assumption you made of "no way" was your ego speaking because you know of no way then no other person could possible figure out how to do it. Your arrogance, ego, reactionary physics(reacting emotionaly to statements contrary to your set of beliefs) have no place in any know scientific methodology. > If you can demonstrate it experimentally, then do so. If you can't, > please understand that we won't accept it until you do. We again? I do not believe you represent the other approximately 50 members of the list. As your members ship has dropped considerable over the recent past perhaps it is time you reconsider your inflexible position and unproven position. I looked over > your "proof" of the possibility of FTL. Sadly it's a jumble of > equations and statements with no logical flow. I do not recall an intelligent question from you in your claimed attempt at understanding like "what is a Stokes". An educated guess is you just read it and thought you were taught something else so what you read must be wrong. What an ego! > And some of its > assumptions seem to be wrong, like the justifying claim that one can > accelerate an object to light speed in about a year, which uses the > Newtonian rather than the relativistic equations for accelerated motion. I used the Newtonian equation correctly for the 1 g acceleration was relative to the star ship and not an earth observer requiring the equation you have in mind. The relativistic equation you have in mind gives the relativistic velocity wrt earth observer. That is the wrong equation for the frame of reference I use. Should you wish to use only the relativistic equations of time dilation for faster than light than use v=d/t, velocity = distance/time and calculate that relative to earth coasting at very near light speed, time dilates to a point where to coast 4 light years requires two years ship giving twice light speed. This time dilation has been proven by the orbiting clock experiment and allows men at a velocity relative to earth below light speed to transverse the galaxy easily in the rocketmen's own life time by reaching near light speed relative to earth. When you can accept that proven fact, I will attempt to explain why we can exceed light speed relative to earth. > Saying that you can reach high relativistic velocities using a drive > powered by nuclear fission is similarly dubious. Achieving high > relativistic velocities requires tremendous amounts of energy, and > nuclear fusion is barely capable of achieving the necessary energy > yield, and requires thousands to millions of times as much fusion fuel > as payload. Let me check your math. An 105 ton ship accelerating at 1 g can propel a 5 ton payload to near light speed relativistic to earth and to twice light speed wrt the ship motion by geting the energy to propell 100 tons of propellant to 1/10 light speed. Recalling my calculation the energy is quite high but no where near infinite and can be provided by converting 1/2 ton of Americium to provide the energy. If you think that average exhaust velocity is to much for my invention to handle then how about 1/100 light speed far a 1000 pound payload to the stars. Would that meet your expectation or would you like to provide the engineering specifications you want and I will engineer an engine to meet them. Until then my engines meet mine. In theory, sure, a fission-powered rocket could get to the > same velocities, but only with absolutely incredible amounts of fission > fuel, at least billions of times the mass of the payload. As stated above paragraph, nonsense theory as you have not done the math using my invention. When my theory became reduced to practice (made practical) it entered the realm of applied physics and not theoretical physics. Regards, Tom From VM Mon Feb 21 10:16:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1206" "Sunday" "20" "February" "2000" "21:49:19" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "37" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1206 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA29192 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:49:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA29185 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:49:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.5b.2407fd8 (4339) for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:49:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5b.2407fd8.25e201af@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 20 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:49:19 EST In a message dated 2/20/00 9:26:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, chithree@boo.net writes: > You couldn't hear it, STAR1SHIP, but I went "ungh!" when I read Steve's last > post. You > can't win. Can we get back to either science or silence now? Hi Conner, I think I heard it:) I just recall a story of bar room pretend scientists debating on the faster horse in a race. Much arguing until bets are placed and the race run. I do not bet or play Steve's nonscientific game of show me. If he indeed owns the list and member souls, I do hope he does not grab his ball and go home:) as I have heard many good ideas from the members. I have not left science. I use the equations of Einstein's special and general relativity to prove my position. That is not revolutionary science. A universal law of light speed limit for rockets would indeed be revolutionary and the science profession has no place for revolutionaries. If you would like to discuss my work without being thought a fool by Steve (and all he claims to speaks for) private mail is OK with me. Regards, Tom CyberSpace Star Ship > Connor > chithree@boo.net From VM Mon Feb 21 12:45:59 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1939" "Monday" "21" "February" "2000" "21:43:43" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "40" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1939 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA19443 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:43:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA19427 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:43:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id VAA20823; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:43:43 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200002212043.VAA20823@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:43:43 +0100 (MET) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Feb 21 03:27:08 2000 > From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com > > > stevev@efn.org writes: > > > > We honestly can't say whether > > FTL is possible or not, because no one has ever demonstrated it > > experimentally. Until it's been proven possible and the engineering > > properties of an FTL drive can be determined, there's just no way to > > build it into a ship. > [...] > I used the Newtonian equation correctly for the 1 g acceleration > was relative to the star ship and not an earth observer requiring > the equation you have in mind. The relativistic equation you have > in mind gives the relativistic velocity wrt earth observer. > That is the wrong equation for the frame of reference I use. > Should you wish to use only the relativistic equations of > time dilation for faster than light than use v=d/t, > velocity = distance/time and calculate that relative to earth > coasting at very near light speed, time dilates to a point where > to coast 4 light years requires two years ship giving twice light speed. > It seems there is some misunderstanding. Tom receives "FTL" by dividing the distance in the Earth reference frame by the time in the starship reference frame. For relativistic speeds, due to time dilation, one indeed obtains from this division a "velocity" larger than c. However, this is not a velocity in physical sense - for which one should measure time and distance in _the same_ reference frame. Concerning the energy calculations, the energy (& mass ratios) needed for obtaining relativistic speeds were calculated many times before by physicists of far greater stature then we here, and I have no reason to doubt their results, which are roughhly the same as given by Steve in his post. Hence, I suspect Tom obtains his optimistic results by similar kind of juggling with equations and reference frames as with his "FTL"... -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Mon Feb 21 13:53:59 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["329" "Monday" "21" "February" "2000" "09:57:22" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "11" "RE: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 329 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA15164 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:51:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15151 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:51:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p460.gnt.com [204.49.91.76]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id PAA16900; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:51:09 -0600 Message-ID: <003001bf7cb5$bbf3b8e0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <7e.1658b55.25e1fbe2@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Cc: Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:57:22 -0600 > We again? I do not believe you represent the other > approximately 50 members > of the list. As your members ship has dropped considerable > over the recent > past perhaps it is time you reconsider your inflexible > position and unproven > position. Gee, if we are counting heads here, I vote for Steve... Lee Parker From VM Mon Feb 21 15:03:38 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3728" "Monday" "21" "February" "2000" "17:45:58" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "104" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3728 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA20192 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:47:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA20183 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:47:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id s.ea.22b7c50 (3876); Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:45:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com, stevev@efn.org CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:45:58 EST In a message dated 2/19/00 11:42:40 PM, STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: >In a message dated 2/19/00 6:00:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, stevev@efn.org > >writes: > >> STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: >> > > Please give a citation for these writings of Einstein that you > >believe >> > > justify your position. At best they are quite at odds with everything >> > > else Einstein wrote about relativity. If you claim that no one else > >> can >> > > see them because they are "non-publized" (sic) then you should >not >> > > expect us to believe that they exist or that they say what you >claim >> > > they say. >> > >> > Would like to give you the citation but it was inadvertently thrown >> > out along with many text books and personal papers by stepfather >when >> > I enlisted in the Air Force. >> >> I just knew you'd say something like that. > >Wow, Now you are a psychic. I speak what I know to be true. Were I dishonest > >I would have not made the patent claim 7 for it would have made the patent > >examination less costly by thousands of dollars. > >Einstein was so fearful of what he had to say about taking responsibility >for >inventing the atomic bomb and how it worked he dictated his 1955 work to >a >women who specialized writing physics books for children and had here place > >his words in her juvenile book to avoid government censors for he spoke >of >things others were to be executed for during that time. It was the Macarthy > >era and the climate of fear dominated discussions of atomic bomb details. > >What Einstein said started me on my search for the machine to obtain the > >super light velocities he predicted were possible. > >The female author waited fro fear until 62 or 63 to publish. Fearful myself, > >I burned the atomic bomb diagrams I had written from his work and my note > >books. I kept only the library book checkout cards from my school library >and >committed my work to memory for without the written work (used to execute > >Rosenbergs) so I figured I was safe from execution. Those library references > >were thrown out. > >Research and documentation to meet your naive standards was impossible >at the >time. Deal with it but you cannot ignore it simply because you do not know > >about it. For it did happen and his work will resurface as it has many >time >since. >Examples: >1. Instructor at FAA academy in 1968 taught me Einstein's impact bomb plans > >for the third time. (The first was my uncle who built them for the Air >Force) >2. Explosive ordinance manual reference book inadvertently published by >US >government printing office (1977) the impact bomb formulas I have published. >3. Found web page of Einstein's taking credit for invention and the reasons > >he told Fermi how to build the bomb in a ten minute telephone(1938) >conversation. (Erased favorite link when switched from AOL 4.0 to 5.0) I'm assuming at this point your hoaxing us. - Anyone involved with physics, or weapons history knows Einstein wasn't involved in the bomb program (though he wrote a letter supporting the gov researching its possibility). - nothing related to blast physics would permit, FTL exaust or in any way relate to possible forms of FTL (past possible power generation). - "..Found web page of Einstein's taking credit for invention.." Einstien died decades before the web was started. - Even an extreamly minimal knowledge of relativity would tell you that travel at light speed would require infinate amounts of power, so FTL would need some other trick to get around that. Its no longer credible that you could have missed all this, so it think its almost certain that your pulling our leg (rather then being this sloppy). Kelly From VM Mon Feb 21 15:03:38 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7314" "Monday" "21" "February" "2000" "17:45:55" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "156" "starship-design: Re: Proposition from Ukraine" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7314 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA19900 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:46:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19895 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:46:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id r.be.1827b44 (3876); Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:45:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: oleg@sovereign.kiev.ua, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Proposition from Ukraine Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:45:55 EST Hi, I'm not sure how you want to cooperate. The group doesn't actively sponcer research. Actually we're not very active the last couple years. Your idea of researching how to form structures out of lunar soil and materials is a good one. McDonnell Douglas and a large Japanese civil engineering firm made some good progress on developing ways to cast concrete out of lunar soil in hard vacuum. Supposedly they could get better structural properties then the best earth based concretes of the day. Anyway I will CC the group on this response so they can add their comments back to you. Good luck! Kelly Starks In a message dated 2/19/00 3:17:27 AM, apply@public.ua.net writes: >Hi ! > >I am, Oleg V. Anokhin, Dr. of Chemistry from Ukraine. > >After re-election of President My Motherland continue move to a World >Community. >I with My friends open site and start work for realize our self in a World >Market Place. >What do You think about such our possibilities for cooperation? >We know that My Ukraine have some interesting cooperation for launch some >system. >Now, when Ukraine have a good relationships in all kind of life, our >knowledge will help >us to cooperation. > >Now about our possibility: > >OBTAINING CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS BASED ON LUNAR SOIL WITH THE USE OF >REGULARITIES OF A ALKALINE BINDING SYSTEMS. > >The assimilation of deep space is connected to the development of new >process engineering's of obtaining of binding materials and building >aggregates on their basis. >The purpose of the present paper is to explore the possibility of using >lunar soil to from cements for lunar construction. >The establishment of a permanently manned lunar base requires construction >materials which can withstand the lunar environment and can be obtained >from >locally available lunar materials. >New processing techniques must be developed for the low gravity environment, >and durability of the product becomes a more important consideration than >strength from locally available materials. >New processing techniques must be developed for the low gravity environment, >and durability of the product becomes a more important consideration than >strength, since the material will be subjected to widely varying thermal >extremes and constant exposure to solar radiation. >Hays and Walker (1975) have inferred that the lunar dust consist of cumulus >plagioclase with entrapped olivine, low-calcium pyroxene, and magnesium >and >aluminum-rich spinal. Since these igneous minerals are extremely durable >and >the evidence suggests that the regolith is derived from weathering of the >underlying crust, it can be inferred that, unless underground construction >is elected, lunar building materials will be subjected to more rigorous >conditions than any on earth. >The lunar crust, estimated to be thick (Toksoz..., 1974) is covered by >continuous layer of mineral debris, or soil, called regolith. >The main constituents of lunar regolith are the same oxides found in >Portland cement and blast-furnace slag, but in different proportions. The >average chemical composition of the fine-grained regolith at various is >given in Table 1 (from Taylar, 1982). >Table 1 - Chemical constitution of lunar soil:.... >There is a significant amount of glassy material due mostly to melting >during meteorite impact. Most of this material exists in the form of >agglutinates-glass-bonded aggregates of glassy, rock and mineral fragment, >formed by during micrometeorite impact. >Taking into account mineral and the chemical similarity of lunar grounds >and >aluminosilicate components (blast furnace slag's) alkaline binding systems >is possible to per forward the supposition about expediency use of known >principles of a construction alkaline binding systems for obtaining binding >substances and building materials on the basis of lunar grounds. >Alkaline binding materials were suggested by our group now >this work continue in Our Group. >The concrete were called "soil silicate concrete's", and the binders "soil >cement". The soil cements are obtained by mixing well-ground mountain rock >with industrial wastes dissolved in caustic alkalis and salt of sodium >and >potassium. They are modeling the formation of natural zeolites of the type >R2O'RO'R2O3'(2-4)SiO2 x nH2O. The synthesizing of these materials,i.e. >their >solidifying in the earth's crust, like zeolites, mica, hydrous mica, which >at high temperatures crystallize to nepheline and feldspars. The synthetic >process is similar to the natural processes of mineral and rock formation. >the idea of using such minerals in binding systems is associated with the >fact that the earth'crust is mainly composed of the rock-forming minerals >based on calcium-sodium-potassium-aluminosilicates, with remarkable >properties, above all high resistance to atmospheric agents. It is assumed >that compounds of a similar nature can be synthesized in the same conditions >as the present binders of hydrated solidification solidify and harden. >Studies have shown that soluble compounds of alkaline metals (caustic >alkali, non-silicate, silicates and aluminates) in conjunction with >aluminosilicate systems, in which calcium is absent (certain slags and >ashes, burnt rock and clay), and with calcium binding systems (lime, >Portland and alumina cements, blast furnace slag's and high-content calcium >ashes and slag's) from hydraulic binding systems called soil cements, which >solidify and harden in water,under ordinary and natural conditions, by >steam >treatment and in autoclave. > The compressive strength of slag-alkaline binders is in the range of >40 to >120 Mpa, those of high strength reaching 150 Mps. The slag-alkaline binders >have great heat resistance and resistance to aggressive weather conditions, >low shrinkage, heat loss and contraction. > Their products of hydration are low-basic hydrous calcium silicate, >calcite, silica, a blend of alkali-alkaline soil hydrous silicates, and >aliminosilicates and hydrous alumina-silica of type tompsonite, hydrous >hepheline, analcime, muscovite and others. > Rapid-hardening slag-alkaline concrete's are known for their intensity >in >attaining strength: in one day >30 Mpa, at a specific surface of 450 to 500 m2/kg up to 60 to 70 Mpa, in >two >days 40 to 50 Mpa, in three days 50 to 60 Mpa, and in 28 days 70 to 150 >Mpa. > For period of development of the scientific bases (fundamentals) of a >construction of alkaline binders systems since 1957. More 1000 scientific >activities are published switching on 14 monographs, more than 350 >ampere-second is obtained. USSR and 10 international patents, is developed >a >full package (packet) of the normative - engineering specifications and >is >conducted 3 national and 2 international conferences on a problem of >development alkaline binders and concrete. > > The interesting information on all affected problems can be received >to >the address of Apply & Science Inc. >At the same time we propose to see our big SITE - WWW.APPLY.COM.UA part >Mineral Industrial Materials in >division of finishing projects. > > >Best regards! >Dr. Oleg V. Anokhin >Department of Chemistry >of Hi-Technology Materials, >Executive Director. >http://www.apply.com.ua >E-Mail: oleg@sovereign.kiev.ua >01001, Ukraine, Kiev. B#337 From VM Tue Feb 22 10:10:38 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1080" "Monday" "21" "February" "2000" "20:55:36" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "21" "starship-design: Rocket Powered Starships..." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1080 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA16633 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:56:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA16626 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:56:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p445.gnt.com [204.49.91.61]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id UAA05477 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:55:58 -0600 Message-ID: <000501bf7ce0$51499ac0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Rocket Powered Starships... Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:55:36 -0600 Just how limited are rockets for interstellar travel? Although rockets are reasonable for journeys into orbit or to the moon, they become unreasonable for interstellar travel. If you want to deliver a modest size payload, say a full Shuttle cargo (20,000 kg), and you are patient enough to wait 900 years for it to just fly by the nearest star, here's how much propellant you'll need: If you use a rocket like on the Shuttle (Isp~ 500s), there isn't enough mass in the universe to get you there. If you use a nuclear fission rocket (Isp~ 5,000s) you need about a billion super-tankers of propellant. If you use a nuclear fusion rocket (Isp~ 10,000s) you only need about a thousand super-tankers. And if you assume that you'll have a super-duper Ion or Antimatter rocket (Isp~ 50,000s), well now you only need about ten railway tankers. It gets even worse if you want to get there sooner. Marc Millis, "Warp Drive When" "People do love to go to weird places for reasons we can't imagine -- mostly because they have too much money." - Freeman Dyson From VM Tue Feb 22 10:10:38 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1226" "Tuesday" "22" "February" "2000" "15:26:19" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "31" "Re: starship-design: Re: Proposition from Ukraine" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1226 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA25984 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 06:27:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA25558 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 06:27:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA21448; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:26:19 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200002221426.PAA21448@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: oleg@sovereign.kiev.ua, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Proposition from Ukraine Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:26:19 +0100 (MET) > In a message dated 2/19/00 3:17:27 AM, apply@public.ua.net writes: > > >Hi! > > > >I am, Oleg V. Anokhin, Dr. of Chemistry from Ukraine. > > > >After re-election of President My Motherland continue move to a World Community. > >I with My friends open site and start work for realize our self in a World > >Market Place. > >What do You think about such our possibilities for cooperation? > >We know that My Ukraine have some interesting cooperation for launch some system. > >Now, when Ukraine have a good relationships in all kind of life, our > >knowledge will help us to cooperation. > > > >Now about our possibility: > > Probably you can find some possibilities for cooperation on this subject through the people grouped around the PERMANENT website (PERMANENT = Projects to Employ Resources of the Moon and Asteroids Near Earth in the Near Term): http://www.permanent.com/ Have also a look at the URANOS Club website. -- Zenon Kulpa * * * * URANOS: Club for Expansion of Civilization into Space * * * * http://www.uranos.eu.org/ Earth is the cradle of humanity, uranos@uranos.eu.org but one cannot live in a cradle forever. [Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky] From VM Wed Feb 23 15:14:33 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["560" "Wednesday" "23" "February" "2000" "18:11:26" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "18" "Re: starship-design: Rocket Powered Starships..." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 560 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA19285 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:12:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA19273 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:12:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 4.97.2385aa1 (7776); Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:11:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <97.2385aa1.25e5c31e@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Rocket Powered Starships... Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:11:26 EST In a message dated 2/21/00 8:56:19 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >If you use a nuclear fusion rocket (Isp~ 10,000s) you only need about a > >thousand super-tankers. And if you assume that you'll have a super-duper >Ion > >or Antimatter rocket (Isp~ 50,000s), well now you only need about ten > >railway tankers. It gets even worse if you want to get there sooner. > > The spec imp numbers for fusin and anti mat are way off. They are in the millions as the stuff I wrote up in the explorer class stuff listed. It makes the numbers less insane. ;) From VM Sun Mar 12 16:27:30 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2685" "Sunday" "12" "March" "2000" "15:00:39" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "45" "starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2685 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17268 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 13:04:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA17263 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 13:04:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p440.gnt.com [204.49.91.56]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id PAA16349 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 15:04:42 -0600 Message-ID: <001301bf8c66$85839850$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 15:00:39 -0600 This came from the American Institute of Physics: "HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE. Many natural and man-made systems exhibit power-law statistics. That is, when you plot the likelihood of an event (e.g., sizes of forest fires, power outages, and web file transfers, or losses due to hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and man-made disasters) as a function of size the resulting graph will fall off proportionally to the size of the event raised to some exponent. Interactions or phenomena at many size scales (from very small to very large) contribute to the overall state of these systems. One theory which tries to explain all this is "self organized criticality." Jean Carlson of UC Santa Barbara (carlson@physics.ucsb.edu) and John Doyle of Caltech (doyle@cds.caltech.edu) now propose another theory, called highly optimized tolerance (HOT), which they believe does a better job of accounting for the tendency in interconnected systems to gain a measure of robustness against uncertainties in one area by becoming more sensitive elsewhere. As with energy conservation or the inexorable increase in entropy, efforts to violate the robustness principle will fail. Especially in biological evolution or in engineering, this means that a system might obtain robustness against common and designed-for uncertainties and yet be hypersensitive to design flaws or rare events. For example, organisms and ecosystems exhibit remarkable robustness to large variations in temperature, moisture, nutrients, and predation, but can be catastrophically sensitive to tiny perturbations, such as a genetic mutation, an exotic species, or a novel virus. Engineers deliberately design systems to be robust to common uncertainties. Cost and performance tradeoffs force an acceptance of some hypersensitivity to (one hopes) rare perturbations. In evolved or designed systems, this tradeoff leads to the "robust, yet fragile" characteristic of complexity, one feature of which is power laws. Doyle and Carlson have been exploring the application of their theory to a number of biological and engineering problems with the help of experts in those fields. (Physical Review Letters, 13 March 2000; Select Article; a longer version appears in Physical Review E, August 1999.)" One has to wonder if this principle can be applied to ALL organized systems, such as software and mechanical engineering. This would have profound implications for systems designed to last for untold years in extreme (and unknown) environments, such as starships. Lee Parker "People do love to go to weird places for reasons we can't imagine -- mostly because they have too much money." - Freeman Dyson From VM Mon Mar 13 16:25:31 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["519" "Monday" "13" "March" "2000" "19:21:49" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "20" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 519 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA20611 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:22:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20588 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:22:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 4.ab.1590367 (4205); Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:21:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:21:49 EST In a message dated 3/12/00 3:06:36 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >One has to wonder if this principle can be applied to ALL organized systems, > >such as software and mechanical engineering. This would have profound > >implications for systems designed to last for untold years in extreme (and > >unknown) environments, such as starships. > > > >Lee Parker Good point. Anything too well adapted to do one thing, will generally be terible at something very different. Works in biology and engineering. Kelly From VM Mon Mar 13 17:56:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["902" "Monday" "13" "March" "2000" "20:53:10" "-0500" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "31" "[Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 902 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA13567 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:55:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA13550 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:55:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.98.139]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.31a 201-229-119-114) with ESMTP id <20000314015506.KYS9475.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 01:55:06 +0000 Message-ID: <38CD9B86.D3493D1@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship Subject: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 20:53:10 -0500 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/12/00 3:06:36 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > > >One has to wonder if this principle can be applied to ALL organized systems, > > > >such as software and mechanical engineering. This would have profound > > > >implications for systems designed to last for untold years in extreme (and > > > >unknown) environments, such as starships. > > > > > > > >Lee Parker > > Good point. Anything too well adapted to do one thing, will generally be > terible at something very different. Works in biology and engineering. > > Kelly Sure. That's what got us where we are today. We aren't the fastest or strongest in anything, but we're mediocre in so _many_ things that we've managed to overtake all of it. I've got a personal theory about space-faring races: one of the requirements is that they be able to eat just about anything. Keep looking up, Curtis From VM Mon Mar 13 18:38:13 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1107" "Monday" "13" "March" "2000" "19:39:38" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "26" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1107 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA24617 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:36:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA24567 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:36:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin48.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.48]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA18829 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:31:30 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38CDA66A.17D3D822@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <38CD9B86.D3493D1@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:39:38 -0700 Curtis Manges wrote: > Sure. That's what got us where we are today. We aren't the fastest or strongest > in anything, but we're mediocre in so _many_ things that we've managed to > overtake all of it. I've got a personal theory about space-faring races: one of > the requirements is that they be able to eat just about anything. > > Curtis Hmm I picture the Tasmanian devil from Bugs Bunny in a space suit. My own view is that the technology of a space faring race is about early 1980's era and very boot-strap-able. This is because things have to be repair-able and easy to manufacture by hand if need be. In a closed environment the type of non recycle-able waste is the major limiting factor of growth. Take computers, you don't need Star-trek type technology to run 99% of the stuff computers are used for. What you need is simple rugged technology, that does not die after 10 years of storage or use. Ben. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Tue Mar 14 10:02:06 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1315" "Monday" "13" "March" "2000" "22:44:54" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "36" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1315 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04774 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:46:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA04765 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:46:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.ba.2b8cc6f (4204); Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:44:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:44:54 EST In a message dated 3/13/00 8:39:36 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >Curtis Manges wrote: > >> Sure. That's what got us where we are today. We aren't the fastest or >strongest >> in anything, but we're mediocre in so _many_ things that we've managed >to >> overtake all of it. I've got a personal theory about space-faring races: >one of >> the requirements is that they be able to eat just about anything. >> >> Curtis > >Hmm I picture the Tasmanian devil from Bugs Bunny in a space suit. >My own view is that the technology of a space faring race is about >early 1980's era and very boot-strap-able. This is because things have >to >be repair-able and easy to manufacture by hand if need be. In a closed >environment the type of non recycle-able waste is the major limiting >factor >of growth. Take computers, you don't need Star-trek type technology to >run 99% of the stuff computers are used for. What you need is simple >rugged technology, that does not die after 10 years of storage or use. >Ben. Hate to tell you, but the Star Trek like tech would be to crude for a couple decades from now, and a IC chip is a IC chip. So using and old CPU is not going to bye you anything. The tech would probably be designed for more adaptability. Things like the Fractal robot systems, and general. Kelly From VM Tue Mar 14 10:02:06 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1175" "Monday" "13" "March" "2000" "21:48:14" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "19" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1175 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA06217 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 21:48:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA06206 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 21:48:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03389 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 21:48:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA23570; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 21:48:20 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14541.53918.485974.206728@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 21:48:14 -0800 (PST) KellySt@aol.com writes: > Hate to tell you, but the Star Trek like tech would be to crude for a couple > decades from now, and a IC chip is a IC chip. So using and old CPU is not > going to bye you anything. When it comes to space applications, not all ICs are equivalent. There's a reason spacecraft don't use off-the-shelf Pentiums or whatever; most processors designed for terrestrial use aren't radiation-resistant and aren't capable of enduring thermal extremes, as well as being overkill for many control applications. Galileo, launched in the 80s, uses 1802 microprocessors from the early 70s, and so do many other probes of its generation. Even with the 1802's CMOS design, Galileo is experiencing frequent computer resets whenever it makes close passes to Jupiter and its radiation belts. The Hubble Space Telescope's recent computer upgrade got it up to using space-certified 486s. You should note that the Mars Pathfinder lander, which used a relatively modern IBM RS/6000 processor, failed after 90 days, most likely due to daily thermal cycling between cold and really damn cold. The rover used a CMOS 8085 that probably lasted quite a bit longer. From VM Tue Mar 14 10:02:06 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2791" "Monday" "13" "March" "2000" "23:03:33" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "71" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2791 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08992 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:00:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA08986 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:00:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin48.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.48]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA28997 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:55:24 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38CDD635.719CC4C1@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:03:33 -0700 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > Hate to tell you, but the Star Trek like tech would be to crude for a couple > decades from now, and a IC chip is a IC chip. So using and old CPU is not > going to bye you anything. True but is the latest computer technology required? A remember a nice short story about group of people using vacuum tubes computers in their space-ships and the captain of the star-ship landing on planet with a atmosphere toxic to the computers, to prevent the ship from being hijacked. > The tech would probably be designed for more adaptability. Things like the > Fractal robot systems, and general. > I say why use all that crap... build a reusable transport system ( the REAL innovative idea and hard part) and use people instead. If you have computers and robots and other Shit like that what is left for people to do in space? The main reason we use that is because we don't have a transportation system yet. Pay load is still small and complex. ( Come on RotoryRocket ... ). Man has not needed robots to advance and explore, just real HE MEN ( and women). After 40 years of space exploration by governments for propaganda and power struggles over space, we have not done any thing really new. For my designs that may not be practical ( Interplanetary travel ) -- 1) No robotics at all other than initial observation. -- 2) Technology about 1980's and free, like linux software. -- 3) Family groups about 6-8 per family and 10-15 families per travel group. -- 4) Priority that other life is requirement for a healthy human life-style, and human relation ships. -- 5) 2 stage transport shuttle/plane to space dock ... Chemical fueled rocket HC4-O2 -- To mach 2? and high altitude. ISP 300? pilot. Beamed energy propulsion from satellite or ground station, on a fractal antenna -wing - HC4? ISP 900? auto-pilot. Dyna-soar skip flight path to orbit, and re-entry. 2000 kg payload to low-earth orbit. 2000 kg ship Delta-v = 9,400 m/s - mach 2 = 8740 vexp = ISP * 9.8 = 8820 FMR=e^(Delta-v / vexp) + 1 = 3.75 15,000 kg second stage -- 6) High - speed transport ship to planetary ferry - ISP 2400. Beamed energy. antimatter/ fusion drive -- 7) Ferry - anti-matter/fusion drive cargo - anti-matter/fusion drive, solar wind -- 8) Solar powered ( in orbit around the sun ) anti-matter production plants. -- 9) NO - FTL travel ... deep space travel will require genetically altered life for a long life span with hibernation and several generations. One way travel... -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Tue Mar 14 10:02:06 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1090" "Tuesday" "14" "March" "2000" "06:27:38" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "22" "RE: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1090 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05941 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:28:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA05935 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:28:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p462.gnt.com [204.49.91.78]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA08717; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 06:28:19 -0600 Message-ID: <003401bf8db0$b7952a70$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <38CDA66A.17D3D822@jetnet.ab.ca> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Ben Franchuk'" Cc: "'starship'" Subject: RE: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 06:27:38 -0600 > Hmm I picture the Tasmanian devil from Bugs Bunny in a space suit. > My own view is that the technology of a space faring race is about > early 1980's era and very boot-strap-able. This is because things have > to > be repair-able and easy to manufacture by hand if need be. In a closed > environment the type of non recycle-able waste is the major limiting > factor > of growth. Take computers, you don't need Star-trek type technology to > run 99% of the stuff computers are used for. What you need is simple > rugged technology, that does not die after 10 years of storage or use. > Ben. As Steve already pointed out is isn't necessarily how simple the technology is, but how robust and rugged. The two are not equivalent. My entire question when I posted the article was how are we going to design for robustness (or as someone else put it - mediocrity)? In a ship whose systems are supposed to last for several human lifetimes, adaptability, ruggedness and robustness become engineering design criteria that are more important than sheer cutting edge state of the art design. Lee From VM Tue Mar 14 10:02:06 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2287" "Tuesday" "14" "March" "2000" "14:21:29" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "50" "starship-design: Trash" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2287 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA12576 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 05:21:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp3.xs4all.nl (smtp3.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.49]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA12571 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 05:21:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from - (stol-104-139.uu.studentennet.nl [145.98.104.139]) by smtp3.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA09839 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:21:38 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000314142129.0068fb4c@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Trash Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:21:29 +0100 OK Guys, I've found a lucrative carreer. I'll become a garbage man. ;) Timothy Boeing to Pay for Missing Station Tanks In an effort to avoid a potential public relations nightmare, the Boeing Corporation said late Friday it, and not NASA, would pay for a pair of missing pressure tanks intended for the International Space Station. The two oxygen and nitrogen high-pressure gas tanks, valued at a combined $750,000, were first reported missing by Boeing last week when they were apparently inadvertently left outside a building at Boeing's Huntsville, Alabama facilities and picked up as trash. Disbelief about the error turned into disgust when Boeing officials said that NASA, and not Boeing, would be responsible for the cost of any replacement units, under the terms of Boeing's contract with the space agency. Late Friday, though, Boeing reversed itself and said that it would reimburse NASA for the tanks, regardless of the cause of their loss. "Boeing has offered to compensate NASA for the hardware, and continue to focus on program objectives," said Joe Mills, Boeing ISS deputy program manager. "As prime contractor we have a good track record of properly caring for and handling government property, and we are doing everything we can to resolve this issue." While both Boeing and NASA believe that the tanks were picked up as trash, they don't know what happened to them after that. Various reports have indicated that the tanks were either sold as scrap or compacted at a local landfill. Efforts to retrieve the tanks from the landfill a week earlier failed to locate them. The tanks were originally meant to be spares for other tanks that will be used to pressurize ISS modules. However, a UPI article cited NASA sources who said the tanks many have been used in a propulsion module NASA was planning for ISS that would replace delayed Russian components. A joint investigation into the incident should wrap up soon, according to Mills. "A Mishap Report, which documents the findings and recommendations of a joint Boeing/NASA independent Incident Review Board, will be formally released early next week," he said. "Boeing already is taking corrective actions to fully implement the recommendations of this Board." [SpaceViews March 13] From VM Tue Mar 14 10:02:06 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1418" "Tuesday" "14" "March" "2000" "10:22:51" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "31" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1418 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA09240 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:19:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA09232 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:19:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin38.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.38]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA14983 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:14:35 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38CE756B.F68F49CD@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <003401bf8db0$b7952a70$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: "'starship'" Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:22:51 -0700 > As Steve already pointed out is isn't necessarily how simple the technology > is, but how robust and rugged. The two are not equivalent. My entire > question when I posted the article was how are we going to design for > robustness (or as someone else put it - mediocrity)? In a ship whose systems > are supposed to last for several human lifetimes, adaptability, ruggedness > and robustness become engineering design criteria that are more important > than sheer cutting edge state of the art design. > The way to do it is to keep the stress down on the components, by having them to work at a steady state. Being able to repair - reuse - recycle components. Finding a scale factor such that you are using the right size design, as a larger ship ( to a point ) can mean less compact items. The best way to design a inter-stellar star ship is to design a inter-planetary ship as that will be the stepping stone to the larger ship. This will be a great job for computer simulation and spread sheets. Take AC power -- 120 volts 60Hz big - heavy - power generation long life span? Air-craft power? -- 96 volts 600Hz small high speed short life span? star ship-power system -- ?? volts ???Hz medium speed, long life span. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Tue Mar 14 12:47:00 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3823" "Tuesday" "14" "March" "2000" "14:32:49" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "86" "RE: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3823 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29241 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:44:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA29232 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:44:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p454.gnt.com [204.49.91.70]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA31739; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:44:45 -0600 Message-ID: <003701bf8df6$1249c940$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <004701bf8dc8$c7048100$0a0a0a0a@heavylight> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Johnny Thunderbird'" Cc: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: RE: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:32:49 -0600 > From: Johnny Thunderbird [mailto:jthunderbird@nternet.com] > The point is, tech should remain humanly comprehensible. You should be > able to grasp the fundamentals of the design so you could > duplicate the > functionality by another route, if need be, after a primary device has > failed. But I don't think the same set of rules applies to > computers as to > mechanical systems. That was my question, the authors seemed to imply that this was a failing of ALL organized systems. That would include software. > Logic circuitry can be made fault-tolerant in the > extreme; it is quite feasible today to build a CPU-memory > module which, > if kept cold enough and shielded from ionizing radiation, could be > expected to grind continuously for a thousand years before > its first error, > let alone any kind of hard failure. If data were coupled in and out > optically, > you could also power the thing photovoltaically, it would use > so little > power. > Put that together with a holographic mass storage, and you > have a chunk > of glass that just doesn't stop thinking, doesn't forget > anything, and just > doesn't fail. Sounds like you just described a magic crystal ball, at least from the outside that is what it would appear to be... > > It's an error to want dumb tools just because they're > simpler. That is, if > digitally-controlled systems make sense because of their > precision, and > if they can be designed so failure of the control unit will > not sabotage the > primary function of the system, but just degrade its > performance, then by > all means go for fancy. From now on, humanity won't be able to forget > anything, including starship crews. Knowledge is strictly > cumulative from > this point, including the knowledge of how to build digital > circuitry. We > have machines which keep us from forgetting. We always will. I didn't mean simpler per se, just that robustness should be given more weight in the design process than intelligence. A case to illustrate, using your own comment above: Rather than build an expensive, screaming, state of the art supercomputer, build a somewhat less expensive, less state of the art array of redundant microcomputers. You get almost the same amount of sheer processing power, the technology is more mature and therefore supposedly more reliable, and if one microcomputer (out of hundreds, or even thousands) fails we have lost only a small fraction of total capacity; now repeat that same exercise over and over again on a local scale so that individual subsystems are not dependant upon the central processing unit to function, each one of them is also redundant. Then look at the software that runs everything and design it to be fault tolerant, auto recovering, and if need bee self repairing. This system is by no means "simpler" its just not fragile, that's all. > I am totally in agreement that the crew of a starship should know how > to build any part of that ship, but I believe that efficiency > should be a > stronger criterion of design than sheer simplicity. With modern tech, all that is really necessary is real time access to that database of knowledge that you mentioned. A reasonably smart person can follow instructions in the database to correct most problems. The ability to build a whole new ship from scratch could even be included along with the tech to build the tech to build the... In some ways we have already touched on this subject somewhat when we discussed sending a semi one-way mission ahead to build either a fueling station or beam transmitter for the follow on missions. There is little difference in the amount of knowledge required either way. Given a reasonable machine tool base and decent automation to start with it would be doable, just not as efficiently as we are used to doing it now. Lee From VM Wed Mar 15 09:50:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5229" "Tuesday" "14" "March" "2000" "22:00:33" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "103" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5229 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA14160 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:02:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA14154 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:02:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id f.da.21562d3 (4331); Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:00:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 31 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:00:33 EST In a message dated 2/21/00 12:45:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: > > > We honestly can't say whether > > > FTL is possible or not, because no one has ever demonstrated it > > > experimentally. Until it's been proven possible and the engineering > > > properties of an FTL drive can be determined, there's just no way to > > > build it into a ship. > > > [...] > > I used the Newtonian equation correctly for the 1 g acceleration > > was relative to the star ship and not an earth observer requiring > > the equation you have in mind. The relativistic equation you have > > in mind gives the relativistic velocity wrt earth observer. > > That is the wrong equation for the frame of reference I use. > > Should you wish to use only the relativistic equations of > > time dilation for faster than light than use v=d/t, > > velocity = distance/time and calculate that relative to earth > > coasting at very near light speed, time dilates to a point where > > to coast 4 light years requires two years ship giving twice light speed. > > > It seems there is some misunderstanding. > Tom receives "FTL" by dividing the distance in the Earth reference frame > by the time in the stars ship reference frame. For relativistic speeds, > due to time dilation, one indeed obtains from this division > a "velocity" larger than c. However, this is not a velocity > in physical sense - for which one should measure time and distance > in _the same_ reference frame. The misunderstanding is in your misstatement :=). The distance between the stars does not change with velocity of the object traveling it. The rocket man correctly measures his velocity using the formula v=distance traveled/time dilated. Relativistic length/distance contractions are only for the relativistic length on the ship and not the space traveled. Proponents of a light speed limit for rockets suggest that the distance traveled would be foreshortened for the rocket man view so the velocity equation would give less than light speed. I counter with he would be measuring the distance with foreshortened rulers so the distance would be greater and thus velocity greater than the twice light speed. This paragraph is a good example of twice (proponent's example and my counter example) mixing reference frames therby providing invalid results ;=). The valid faster then light effects I describe were noticed, understood and as fact used as the basis by the SCI-faction author Poul Anderson in his fictional account of just such a star journey in the book " Tau Ceti". of the 1960s. The time dilation effects for FTL in Einstein lifetime were only theory. Later orbiting clock experiments have proven Einstein's time dilation as fact not theory. Interpolation to velocities near and greater than light speed prove quite valid. When the measurements are extended from the origin and the error bars (earth orbital clock velocity is plus and minus measurement of measured value), Einstein's equation predicition fit nicely within the interpolated values for relativistic velocities. > Concerning the energy calculations, the energy (& mass ratios) > needed for obtaining relativistic speeds were calculated many > times before by physicists of far greater stature then we here, Present company(me) and Einstein excluded of course ;=) The calculations were made by mainly for and by Bussard in calculating the velocity of his rocket engine. Since he did not have the knowledge of the power ratio of atomic bombs and reactors compared to chemical rockets he used and made a poor educated guess which I and time and have since corrected. (Specific impulse is simply not important in many rocket designs as a velocity determiner.) > and I have no reason to doubt their results, which are roughhly > the same as given by Steve in his post. I give dozens of excellent reasons, but are best are summed in evaluating the previous atomic rocket designs the patent office sent me in showing how my design is a significant improvement. Power ratios from 100 thousand to 100, million times the power per pound of chemical reaction rocket are expected and obtainable by my design. I will soon post here my evaluation of previous rocket designs, as soon as I scan them from the printed document into word processor text. Should this not be prove satisfactory (my scanner has a movement clich), I will scan them as pictures and provide a link to the website page created for them. > Hence, I suspect Tom obtains his optimistic results by similar > kind of juggling with equations and reference frames as with his "FTL"... I used only real world measurements and their interpolation, and not the overly conservative poor guesses of Bussard using only specific impulse who did not understand the measured power ratios of reactors or bombs and their fair comparison to rocket efficiencies regarding atomic Vs chemical rocket machines. Please forgive my delay in responding as my computer time as been slim the past few weeks, I will try to respond more promptly as my work schedule has lightened somewhat. Regards, Tom > > -- Zenon Kulpa > From VM Wed Mar 15 09:50:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["207" "Tuesday" "14" "March" "2000" "22:02:44" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "8" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 207 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA14549 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:03:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA14544 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:03:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 4.4e.2dc7c9b (4331); Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:02:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4e.2dc7c9b.26005754@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 31 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:02:44 EST In a message dated 2/21/00 1:51:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > Gee, if we are counting heads here, I vote for Steve... > > Lee Parker No accounting for taste proven :=) From VM Wed Mar 15 09:50:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["9852" "Tuesday" "14" "March" "2000" "23:09:04" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "237" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 9852 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01341 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:09:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA01332 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:09:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.3b.235bcaa (4331); Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:09:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3b.235bcaa.260066e0@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 31 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:09:04 EST In a message dated 2/21/00 2:45:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, Kelly St writes: > > In a message dated 2/19/00 11:42:40 PM, STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > > >In a message dated 2/19/00 6:00:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, stevev@efn.org > > > >writes: > > > >> STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > >> > > Please give a citation for these writings of Einstein that you > > > >believe > >> > > justify your position. At best they are quite at odds with > everything > >> > > else Einstein wrote about relativity. If you claim that no one else > > > >> can > >> > > see them because they are "non-publized" (sic) then you should > >not > >> > > expect us to believe that they exist or that they say what you > >claim > >> > > they say. > >> > > >> > Would like to give you the citation but it was inadvertently thrown > >> > out along with many text books and personal papers by stepfather > >when > >> > I enlisted in the Air Force. > >> > >> I just knew you'd say something like that. > > > >Wow, Now you are a psychic. I speak what I know to be true. Were I > dishonest > > > >I would have not made the patent claim 7 for it would have made the patent > > > >examination less costly by thousands of dollars. > > > >Einstein was so fearful of what he had to say about taking responsibility > >for > >inventing the atomic bomb and how it worked he dictated his 1955 work to > >a > >women who specialized writing physics books for children and had here place > > > >his words in her juvenile book to avoid government censors for he spoke > >of > >things others were to be executed for during that time. It was the Macarthy > > > >era and the climate of fear dominated discussions of atomic bomb details. > > > >What Einstein said started me on my search for the machine to obtain the > > > >super light velocities he predicted were possible. > > > >The female author waited fro fear until 62 or 63 to publish. Fearful myself, > > > > >I burned the atomic bomb diagrams I had written from his work and my note > > > >books. I kept only the library book checkout cards from my school library > >and > >committed my work to memory for without the written work (used to execute > > > >Rosenbergs) so I figured I was safe from execution. Those library > references > > > >were thrown out. > > > >Research and documentation to meet your naive standards was impossible > >at the > >time. Deal with it but you cannot ignore it simply because you do not know > > > >about it. For it did happen and his work will resurface as it has many > >time > >since. > >Examples: > >1. Instructor at FAA academy in 1968 taught me Einstein's impact bomb plans > > > >for the third time. (The first was my uncle who built them for the Air > >Force) > >2. Explosive ordinance manual reference book inadvertently published by > >US > >government printing office (1977) the impact bomb formulas I have published. > > >3. Found web page of Einstein's taking credit for invention and the reasons > > > >he told Fermi how to build the bomb in a ten minute telephone(1938) > >conversation. (Erased favorite link when switched from AOL 4.0 to 5.0) > > I'm assuming at this point your hoaxing us. Wrong:!!!.... but others have not taken me serious :=) Speaking for myself Anecdotally, I begin my study of physics seriously in grade school form the writings of physicists who thought physics should be taught at the grade school level. By high school I had designed both atomic bombs and atomic rockets. Applied physics I learned in two years of government electronic schools. By the time I actually got around to taking a university basic physics course in (1977)learning how to measure marbles), I was so bored I drew an atomic bomb on a shrinky dink (clear plastic that shrinks on heating) placed it pointed to the bibliography reference in "Lawrence and Oppenheimer" index listing on "How to Build An Atomic Bomb" and handed it in to the physics department for extra credit. When the chrome foil wrap and silver thread fuse was removed from the bomb shaped shrinky dink the device "blew up" in size on a overhead projector for classroom display (show and tell). They did not take me serious as the had the preconcieced notion that it was not possible as they thought it would take teams of best scientist and millions of dollars to do what I had done. I then walked from the university without withdrawing so flunked out. Several years later I placed my work against the work of other student publications in the Chicago Tribune and Progressive Magazine and learned mine was complete as they were missing parts and theory constructing duds. I then called they FBI and told them I designed an atomic bomb and to come out and pick up my report. They had no problem taking me seriously' but, that is another story----. My point is that if you have not learned physics before entering junior high you just do not have a chance of catching up. Even the graduate level course work in physics I took was taught at the elementary level with not even elementary theoretical analysis or the definitive proofs required or understanding beyond rote memorization. As a result most physics Ph.Ds I converse with cannot even analyze new theories against those they were taught. Study of physics at a university even to graduate level (I have graduate level credits) would appear to be a waste of time until peconceived notions are discarded. Kelly, I do not play games. I recommend physics be learned behind the barn from forbidden knowledge books. Examples: A Definitive Analysis of Atomic Power Plasma Rocket Engine MATH PROOFS > > - Anyone involved with physics, or weapons history knows Einstein wasn't > involved in the bomb program (though he wrote a letter supporting the gov > researching its possibility). Misinformation, He explained the letter to Roosevelt he signed as concocted by Enrico Fermi to obtain funding to build Einstein's invention. The pretense was that the device was not invented as funding was available for research and not development so the wording omitted the fact it was invented to obtain funding easily available to discover something while ignoring what has already been discovered. This scientific method (unethical but needed method) of getting grants worked and first used by Roger Bacon in the 12th or 13th century on the King to get funds to transmute base metals to gold. ..Of general interest -- reading the French text of Roger Bacon, he coined the words fusion and fission respectively to describe the process of making gold from lighter or heavier elements--Believe it or not but check your library for Bacon's published works for verification. I recall that reference was in his work measuring the velocity of light. I have no reason to believe Einstein built the device he invented. The actual builders of the Manhattan device wrote their names and placed them in a time capsule not to be uncovered for 100 years in the year 2045. I suspect Fermi was on the list. No proof accessible as the location of the time capsule is probably lost. Reference to the capsule can be found in the library of Congress publication entitled "Lawrence and Oppenheimer". Knowledge of it had leaked in a letter written by one of the builders sent to his mother's sister and published. > > - nothing related to blast physics would permit, FTL exaust or in any way > relate to possible forms of FTL (past possible power generation). > > - "..Found web page of Einstein's taking credit for invention.." Einstien > died decades before the web was started. Your syntex (time case)error, The web page author quoted Einstein's 1955 statements. > > - Even an extremely minimal knowledge of relativity would tell you that > travel at light speed would require infinate amounts of power, so FTL would > need some other trick to get around that. Wrong the only infinite amount requirement is when you attempt to go from zero to light speed instanteously (very short period of time). As this is what particle accelerators do, they are under the limit so that laws momentum are conserved as proven. Chemical rockets have prior velocity limitations (mass and height), so the equation is not applicable there. Atomic rockets that do no use high specific impulse or instantaneous acceleration have no limit on velocity. The divide by zero consequence of a relativistic observer equation is defined to be the point where the observer ceases to be able to observe due to the velocity of the observer light limit and says nothing about a masses limiting velocity. > > Its no longer credible that you could have missed all this, so it think its > almost certain that your pulling our leg (rather then being this sloppy). I just went into the subject and trained much deeper than you. What I cannot find credible is that you bought the misinformation about nucleus of protons and chain reactions and critical mass junk the government fed you. I only know what I know from insider knowledge from my early years, so as a humanitarian can understand you being misled. What I cannot understand is you being mislead for so long a time to where even my reason and logic cannot remove your preconceived notions that fail with the minimum of scientific examination and common sense. You need to place US government press release credibility (regarding atomic physics -or the meaning of sexual relations) with the tooth fairy, and Santa Claus :+) Sincerely, Tom > Kelly From VM Wed Mar 15 09:50:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["420" "Tuesday" "14" "March" "2000" "21:13:26" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "12" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 420 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01465 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:10:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA01458 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:10:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin47.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.47]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA19743; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 21:05:05 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38CF0DE6.CCD64173@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4e.2dc7c9b.26005754@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 21:13:26 -0700 FTL --- ya -- sure ... !!! Right now I am waiting for a good reusable orbital launch vehicle , FTL a good few more years yet, some time after fusion power or cheaper anti-matter, since one does need a way to power the beast. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Thu Mar 16 09:59:09 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1725" "Thursday" "16" "March" "2000" "00:25:36" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "37" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1725 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01439 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 21:26:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01434 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 21:26:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id s.4a.2d4dad4 (4207); Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:25:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4a.2d4dad4.2601ca50@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stevev@efn.org, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:25:36 EST In a message dated 3/13/00 11:48:52 PM, stevev@efn.org writes: >KellySt@aol.com writes: > > Hate to tell you, but the Star Trek like tech would be to crude for >a couple > > decades from now, and a IC chip is a IC chip. So using and old CPU >is not > > going to bye you anything. > >When it comes to space applications, not all ICs are equivalent. >There's a reason spacecraft don't use off-the-shelf Pentiums or >whatever; most processors designed for terrestrial use aren't >radiation-resistant and aren't capable of enduring thermal extremes, as >well as being overkill for many control applications. Galileo, launched >in the 80s, uses 1802 microprocessors from the early 70s, and so do many >other probes of its generation. Even with the 1802's CMOS design, >Galileo is experiencing frequent computer resets whenever it makes close >passes to Jupiter and its radiation belts. The Hubble Space Telescope's >recent computer upgrade got it up to using space-certified 486s. You >should note that the Mars Pathfinder lander, which used a relatively >modern IBM RS/6000 processor, failed after 90 days, most likely due to >daily thermal cycling between cold and really damn cold. The rover used >a CMOS 8085 that probably lasted quite a bit longer. Its not that the newer chips can't be space rated, just no one fliped the bill to do it. Oh, last I heard the pathfinder died when the bats went. It was the '90's and long survival nuclear power cells were politically incorrect. So when the photi voltaics could deliver enough charge to get it through the night.... I'm asuming yuour talking about the lander from a few years ago, not the one that crashed a few months back? No CPU issues there. Kelly From VM Thu Mar 16 09:59:09 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4615" "Thursday" "16" "March" "2000" "00:25:32" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "183" "Re: RE: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4615 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01562 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 21:27:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01555 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 21:27:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 4.d4.22d3f8d (4207); Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:25:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, jthunderbird@nternet.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:25:32 EST In a message dated 3/14/00 2:45:59 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> From: Johnny Thunderbird [mailto:jthunderbird@nternet.com] > >> The point is, tech should remain humanly comprehensible. You should be > >> able to grasp the fundamentals of the design so you could > >> duplicate the > >> functionality by another route, if need be, after a primary device has > >> failed. But I don't think the same set of rules applies to > >> computers as to > >> mechanical systems. > > > >That was my question, the authors seemed to imply that this was a failing >of > >ALL organized systems. That would include software. It is a factor in ANY kind of system. Optimize it to much for one kind of thing and it won't be as adaptable for something else. >> Logic circuitry can be made fault-tolerant in the > >> extreme; it is quite feasible today to build a CPU-memory > >> module which, > >> if kept cold enough and shielded from ionizing radiation, could be > >> expected to grind continuously for a thousand years before > >> its first error, > >> let alone any kind of hard failure. If data were coupled in and out > >> optically, > >> you could also power the thing photovoltaically, it would use > >> so little > >> power. > >> Put that together with a holographic mass storage, and you > >> have a chunk > >> of glass that just doesn't stop thinking, doesn't forget > >> anything, and just > >> doesn't fail. > > > >Sounds like you just described a magic crystal ball, at least from the > >outside that is what it would appear to be... IC chips do have internal chemical reactins that will destroy them after a few decades, but thats not a real problem. >> It's an error to want dumb tools just because they're > >> simpler. That is, if > >> digitally-controlled systems make sense because of their > >> precision, and > >> if they can be designed so failure of the control unit will > >> not sabotage the > >> primary function of the system, but just degrade its > >> performance, then by > >> all means go for fancy. From now on, humanity won't be able to forget > >> anything, including starship crews. Knowledge is strictly > >> cumulative from > >> this point, including the knowledge of how to build digital > >> circuitry. We > >> have machines which keep us from forgetting. We always will. > > > >I didn't mean simpler per se, just that robustness should be given more > >weight in the design process than intelligence. A case to illustrate, using > >your own comment above: > > > >Rather than build an expensive, screaming, state of the art supercomputer, > >build a somewhat less expensive, less state of the art array of redundant > >microcomputers. You get almost the same amount of sheer processing power, > >the technology is more mature and therefore supposedly more reliable, and >if > >one microcomputer (out of hundreds, or even thousands) fails we have lost > >only a small fraction of total capacity; now repeat that same exercise >over > >and over again on a local scale so that individual subsystems are not > >dependant upon the central processing unit to function, each one of them >is > >also redundant. Then look at the software that runs everything and design >it > >to be fault tolerant, auto recovering, and if need bee self repairing. >This > >system is by no means "simpler" its just not fragile, that's all. 1 - lots of stuff is being forgpten - especially if the old file formats aer no longer supported. 2 - you right that simpler and older tech does NOT mean that its more relyable or robust. The later are characteristics of the design, not of older tech. >> I am totally in agreement that the crew of a starship should know how > >> to build any part of that ship, but I believe that efficiency > >> should be a > >> stronger criterion of design than sheer simplicity. > > > >With modern tech, all that is really necessary is real time access to that > >database of knowledge that you mentioned. A reasonably smart person can > >follow instructions in the database to correct most problems. The ability >to > >build a whole new ship from scratch could even be included along with the > >tech to build the tech to build the... Totally wrong. Folks like to think that its all been written down, but it ain't true. A lot of it is "cultural knowledge" of the manufacturers as well as years of training. You can't just pull out a book on how to build a IC and start churning them out. Past that it takes whole cites full of people and factories to build all the things a ship would need. You can't carry all that gear with you. >Lee Kelly From VM Thu Mar 16 09:59:09 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1086" "Thursday" "16" "March" "2000" "00:25:34" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "25" "Re: RE: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1086 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01603 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 21:27:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01598 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 21:27:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 4.7a.2badc26 (4207); Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:25:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <7a.2badc26.2601ca4e@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:25:34 EST In a message dated 3/14/00 6:28:47 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >As Steve already pointed out is isn't necessarily how simple the technology >is, but how robust and rugged. The two are not equivalent. My entire >question when I posted the article was how are we going to design for >robustness (or as someone else put it - mediocrity)? In a ship whose systems >are supposed to last for several human lifetimes, adaptability, ruggedness >and robustness become engineering design criteria that are more important >than sheer cutting edge state of the art design. > >Lee Thats why I kept demanding short missions. If you go past 20-30 years not only your crew burns out, but your ship does. To scale both up to fully self supporting the ship becomes hundreds of times larger. Its easier to just burn more fuel and send a faster ship. Besides, you'ld be an idiot to send a multi generation ship. It would get passed up by newer ships from later generatins before it got anywhere, and the folks back home would't pay for a mission they'ld never see the results of. Kelly From VM Thu Mar 16 09:59:09 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3793" "Thursday" "16" "March" "2000" "00:25:38" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "109" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3793 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01453 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 21:26:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01443 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 21:26:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.c0.1f2a221 (4207); Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:25:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:25:38 EST In a message dated 3/14/00 12:00:50 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> Hate to tell you, but the Star Trek like tech would be to crude for a >couple >> decades from now, and a IC chip is a IC chip. So using and old CPU is >not >> going to bye you anything. > >True but is the latest computer technology required? A remember a nice >short story about group of people using vacuum tubes computers in their >space-ships and the captain of the star-ship landing on planet with >a atmosphere toxic to the computers, to prevent the ship from being >hijacked. I remember the story, but the bottom line is why NOT use the new CPU's? They arn't really more expensive, they are easier to use, and are far more capable. > >> The tech would probably be designed for more adaptability. Things like >the >> Fractal robot systems, and general. >> >I say why use all that crap... build a reusable transport system ( >the REAL innovative idea and hard part) and use people instead. If you >have computers and robots and other Shit like that what is left for >people to do in space? If their ain't a reason to bring people, we won't. We use better equipment, because it saves having to bring more less capable stuff up instead. The fractal robotics could replace a ton of clamps, tooling, and robotics. >The main reason we use that is because we don't have a transportation >system >yet. Pay load is still small and complex. >( Come on RotoryRocket ... ). Man has not needed robots to advance >and explore, just real HE MEN ( and women). Ah, have you checked out the stuff NASA's been launching the last few decades? >After 40 years of space >exploration by governments >for propaganda and power struggles over space, we have not done any >thing really >new. > >For my designs that may not be practical ( Interplanetary travel ) > >-- 1) No robotics at all other than initial observation. >-- 2) Technology about 1980's and free, like linux software. >-- 3) Family groups about 6-8 per family and 10-15 families per > travel group. Where are you talking about going? Families?! For exploration? >-- 4) Priority that other life is requirement for a healthy > human life-style, and human relation ships. Which means in english? >-- 5) 2 stage transport shuttle/plane to space dock ... > Chemical fueled rocket HC4-O2 -- To mach 2? and high altitude. ISP >300? pilot. > Beamed energy propulsion from satellite or ground station, on a >fractal antenna -wing - HC4? ISP 900? auto-pilot. Dyna-soar skip flight >path to orbit, and re-entry. > 2000 kg payload to low-earth orbit. > 2000 kg ship Thats awflly expensive and clubsey. We have a lot better and cheaper stuf collecting dust on the shelves. > > Delta-v = 9,400 m/s - mach 2 = 8740 > vexp = ISP * 9.8 = 8820 > FMR=e^(Delta-v / vexp) + 1 = 3.75 > 15,000 kg second stage > > >-- 6) High - speed transport ship to planetary ferry - ISP 2400. Beamed >energy. > antimatter/ fusion drive And how do you pay for that antimater? Just make a straight fusion reactor and forget about it. > >-- 7) Ferry - anti-matter/fusion drive > cargo - anti-matter/fusion drive, solar wind > >-- 8) Solar powered ( in orbit around the sun ) > anti-matter production plants. > >-- 9) NO - FTL travel ... deep space travel will require > genetically altered life for a long life span with hibernation > and several generations. One way travel... NO WAY. No one is going to fund one way missions! You can't kill off your crews at missions end to save yourself the fuel bill. And don't even try the colony give. You bviously ae demanmding tech WAY below the level that could even think about independany colonies. Kelly From VM Thu Mar 16 09:59:09 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1465" "Thursday" "16" "March" "2000" "00:25:40" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "36" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1465 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01460 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 21:26:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01452 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 21:26:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.48.2d78759 (4207); Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:25:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <48.2d78759.2601ca54@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:25:40 EST In a message dated 3/14/00 11:20:50 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >> As Steve already pointed out is isn't necessarily how simple the technology >> is, but how robust and rugged. The two are not equivalent. My entire >> question when I posted the article was how are we going to design for >> robustness (or as someone else put it - mediocrity)? In a ship whose >systems >> are supposed to last for several human lifetimes, adaptability, ruggedness >> and robustness become engineering design criteria that are more important >> than sheer cutting edge state of the art design. >> > >The way to do it is to keep the stress down on the components, by having >them >to work at a steady state. Being able to repair - reuse - recycle >components. >Finding a scale factor such that you are using the right size design, as >a larger >ship ( to a point ) can mean less compact items. The best way to design >a inter-stellar star ship is to design a inter-planetary ship as that >will be the >stepping stone to the larger ship. > >This will be a great job for computer simulation and spread sheets. >Take AC power -- 120 volts 60Hz big - heavy - power generation long >life span? >Air-craft power? -- 96 volts 600Hz small high speed short life span? >star ship-power system -- ?? volts ???Hz medium speed, long life span. > Ah, a interplanetary craft has little to nothinhg in common with a star ship? How can you make one evolutionary from the other? Kelly From VM Thu Mar 16 09:59:09 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1498" "Wednesday" "15" "March" "2000" "23:07:48" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "38" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1498 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08835 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:04:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA08830 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:04:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin54.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.54]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA22109 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:59:15 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38D07A34.5998ED30@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:07:48 -0700 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > Totally wrong. Folks like to think that its all been written down, but it > ain't true. A lot of it is "cultural knowledge" of the manufacturers as well > as years of training. You can't just pull out a book on how to build a > IC and start churning them out. Past that it takes whole cites full of > people and factories to build all the things a ship would need. You can't > carry all that gear with you. > I disagree -- you have to carry a boot strap able system. All that stuff could fit in a large space craft the catch is it is not economic to have small systems and you may have to reduce operating perimeters. Take solid state logic... A portable chip processing plant could be table top size, but may have to use 2 inch wafers, be limited to 64kb x 1 dynamic ram,16 bit processors ,or smaller and only produce 256 chips a day. Remember too, that the environment has changed too, with say 1000 people on a space craft, or planetary base, demands of the things needed will be a lot different than back on earth. It is only within the last 50 years that we really have lost the ability to be independent. A robotic - mining factory with only 25 people for exotic material might make a stock-holders rich,but will not do much for colonizing a planet. Ben. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Thu Mar 16 09:59:09 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2233" "Thursday" "16" "March" "2000" "00:05:03" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "67" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2233 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA20253 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:01:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA20248 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:01:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin54.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.54]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA26354 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:56:30 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38D0879F.215A7EB4@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:05:03 -0700 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > I remember the story, but the bottom line is why NOT use the new CPU's? They > arn't really more expensive, they are easier to use, and are far more capable. > But only a few are space rated. > If their ain't a reason to bring people, we won't. We use better equipment, > because it saves having to bring more less capable stuff up instead. The > fractal robotics could replace a ton of clamps, tooling, and robotics. > Well then forget about people -- they have eat sleep and mate every so often. Just build a nice AI computer and send that to run the ship. > Ah, have you checked out the stuff NASA's been launching the last few decades? Is bigger better? > Where are you talking about going? Families?! For exploration? > Yes Families for exploration, Man has ALLWAYS taken his family along. > --- space craft design --- > > Thats awflly expensive and clubsey. We have a lot better and cheaper stuf > collecting dust on the shelves. > All the current stuff is disposable and expensive... 500 million for a shuttle launch. Can't wait for the "Fusion" powered launch vehicles. > > And how do you pay for that antimater? Just make a straight fusion reactor > and forget about it. I use a fusion reactor -- it is called the sun -- to make the anti-matter. Anti-matter catalyzed fusion will probability come before straight fusion, how ever I like using it as a personal whim. Then again I like 12 bit computers > NO WAY. No one is going to fund one way missions! You can't kill off your > crews at missions end to save yourself the fuel bill. And don't even try the > colony give. You bviously ae demanmding tech WAY below the level that could > even think about independany colonies. I don't plan to kill off the people at the end of mission. For practical purposes it will be a one way mission because of the long separation from Earth. My design plan is to start of with the minimum possible and then expand to comfortable level. We just differ on what is comfortable. Ben. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Thu Mar 16 09:59:09 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1330" "Thursday" "16" "March" "2000" "00:07:59" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "37" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1330 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA20548 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:04:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA20543 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:04:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin54.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.54]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA26398 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:59:25 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38D0884F.A3E0FFC7@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <48.2d78759.2601ca54@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:07:59 -0700 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 3/14/00 11:20:50 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: > >The way to do it is to keep the stress down on the components, by having > >them > >to work at a steady state. Being able to repair - reuse - recycle > >components. > >Finding a scale factor such that you are using the right size design, as > >a larger > >ship ( to a point ) can mean less compact items. The best way to design > >a inter-stellar star ship is to design a inter-planetary ship as that > >will be the > >stepping stone to the larger ship. > > Ah, a interplanetary craft has little to nothinhg in common with a star ship? > How can you make one evolutionary from the other? I you mean I can't add a warp drive to a interplanetary ship and leave the solar system. I see them having many common features with each other, as only the size, propulsion ,and length of trips really differ. A interplanetary ship to the outer planets with a fission power plant would be about 5 years duration in 2050 compared with 10 year interstellar trip at .5C in 2150. We really need a interplanetary ship design section too. Ben. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Thu Mar 16 09:59:09 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["861" "Thursday" "16" "March" "2000" "06:50:52" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "21" "RE: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 861 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA03318 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 04:53:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA03313 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 04:53:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p443.gnt.com [204.49.91.59]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id GAA17771; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 06:53:13 -0600 Message-ID: <002101bf8f46$860dfe90$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <38D07A34.5998ED30@jetnet.ab.ca> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Ben Franchuk'" Cc: Subject: RE: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 06:50:52 -0600 Although robotic mining will probably be included in mission parameters to some extent, it is very unlikely that there will be any consortium of investors expecting to make money off of it. There is enough material in our solar system that is easier to get at and a lot closer to home to last for thousands of years. Shipping ore back from another star system is impractical from a cost standpoint alone. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of Ben > Franchuk > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 12:08 AM > Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE > > > A robotic - mining factory with only 25 people for exotic > material might > make > a stock-holders rich,but will not do much for colonizing a planet. > From VM Thu Mar 16 18:14:29 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3766" "Thursday" "16" "March" "2000" "21:11:37" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "95" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3766 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA21469 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:12:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA21459 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:12:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.c8.2780d73 (4333); Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:11:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 31 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:11:37 EST In a message dated 3/14/00 8:10:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: > FTL --- ya -- sure ... !!! > Right now I am waiting for a good reusable orbital launch > vehicle , FTL a good few more years yet, some time after > fusion power or cheaper anti-matter, since one does need > a way to power the beast. > bfranchuk, This will work now for FTL star ship. Plasma Rocket Engine Tom Since your waiting on earth for someone else to provide you a good reusable orbital launch vehicle, it would be reasonable to assume you think like NASA does of space ships as high flying airplanes. I think of real space ships as deep-space ships. With your attitude, you will remain ground bounded referred to derogatorily by "deep spacers" as "a ground bounder." It would seem that the title of this mailing list is misnamed starship-design. Making for the moment the silly assumption that my engine will not do as I claim, I propose the following open ended proposition to all list members. Concerned, Pretend we have a working engine to take to the stars at a constant one-g. To get public funding for a star journey requires a complete package as did the programs for orbiting man around the earth or landing man on the moon prior to construction. Pretend that soon someone will invent a working starship engine, providing heat, light, water artificial gravity, and a protective shell as (I claim to have already invented), What can this group provide as content? Can this group fill the empty payload space with matter to say provide for a mixed sex crew of 20 for a simple non returning journey whose mission is a lifelong journey on the ship, or to a star planetoid so barren that an underground cave must be adapted air tight for colonization as a minimum requirement till crew life's end? What would be needed as beginning supplies should they find a planet to land on that the crew can prosper and multiply?. What technology exists today that you would be conformable living the remainder of your life in? Recycled garbage and human waste as food does not appeal to me, though I am no against feeding it to the plants and animals on the soil (for export to barren world) on board. What seed stock and frozen embryos and DNA clonable samples and soil matter reduced (not containing obtainable ground rock) ? Assume complete independence from earth (information travels to slow between stars to be useful-still pretending my FTL engine not workable) so what CD's of library knowledge, minimal trade crafts, food, and plants, soil and animals would you take to the stars. List by weight next to the item. The total weight I or a future inventor can then use to design the engine specs make the engine to power such a workable mission. Should the crew be condemned prisoners or starship--design list members or will I have to drag mankind to the stars kicking and screaming? Engine aside, can you draw a working diagram of the payload system that is buildable with present technology or do I have to provide everything to be credible? Remember the fickle public funding freaks require a complete list of items of a working package with no unknowns. I expect the members of this group to have done some original homework as regards the above. If not then perhaps a list name change to star travel-is-impossible@lists.. would be appropriate. I am not the general public and am conformable with unknowns you may provide. Please separate applied technology (conventional known technology) from theoretical (hypothesis) in your response. Please take some care with syntax usage (time case of past, present, future). Regards, Tom From VM Fri Mar 17 09:59:27 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3874" "Thursday" "16" "March" "2000" "22:22:32" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "101" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3874 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA06861 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:23:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA06856 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:23:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id f.b1.263cfbc (4331); Thu, 16 Mar 2000 22:22:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 31 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 22:22:32 EST In a message dated 3/14/00 8:10:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: > FTL --- ya -- sure ... !!! > Right now I am waiting for a good reusable orbital launch > vehicle , FTL a good few more years yet, some time after > fusion power or cheaper anti-matter, since one does need > a way to power the beast. > bfranchuk, This will work now for FTL star ship. Plasma Rocket Engine Tom Since your waiting on earth for someone else to provide you a good reusable orbital launch vehicle, it would be reasonable to assume you think like NASA does of space ships as high flying airplanes. I think of real space ships as deep-space ships. With your attitude, you will remain ground bounded referred to derogatorily by "deep spacers" as "a ground bounder." It would seem that the title of this mailing list is misnamed starship-design. Making for the moment the silly assumption that my engine will not do as I claim, I propose the following open ended proposition to all list members. Concerned, Pretend we have a working engine to take to the stars at a constant one-g. To get public funding for a star journey requires a complete package as did the programs for orbiting man around the earth or landing man on the moon prior to construction. Pretend that soon someone will invent a working starship engine, providing heat, light, water artificial gravity, and a protective shell as (I claim to have already invented), What can this group provide as content? Can this group fill the empty payload space with matter to say provide for a mixed sex crew of 20 for a simple non returning journey whose mission is a lifelong journey on the ship, or to a star planetoid so barren that an underground cave must be adapted air tight for colonization as a minimum requirement till crew life's end? What would be needed as beginning supplies should they find a planet to land on that the crew can prosper and multiply?. What technology exists today that you would be conformable living the remainder of your life in? Recycled garbage and human waste as food does not appeal to me, though I am no against feeding it to the plants and animals on the soil (for export to barren world) on board. What seed stock and frozen embryos and DNA clonable samples and soil matter reduced (not containing obtainable ground rock) ? Assume complete independence from earth (information travels to slow between stars to be useful-still pretending my FTL engine not workable) so what CD's of library knowledge, minimal trade crafts, food, and plants, soil and animals would you take to the stars. List by weight next to the item. The total weight I or a future inventor can then use to design the engine specs make the engine to power such a workable mission. Should the crew be condemned prisoners or starship--design list members or will I have to drag mankind to the stars kicking and screaming? Engine aside, can you draw a working diagram of the payload system that is buildable with present technology or do I have to provide everything to be credible? Remember the fickle public funding freaks require a complete list of items of a working package with no unknowns. I expect the members of this group to have done some original homework as regards the above. If not then perhaps a list name change to star travel-is-impossible@lists.. would be appropriate. I am not the general public and am conformable with unknowns you may provide. Please separate applied technology (conventional known technology) from theoretical (hypothesis) in your response. Please take some care with syntax usage (time case of past, present, future). Regards, Tom PS pardon the previous unrespondable linked text mail -"opps" Amended.... CyberSpace Star Ship From VM Fri Mar 17 09:59:27 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5351" "Thursday" "16" "March" "2000" "20:30:00" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "143" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5351 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA07914 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:27:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA07899 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:26:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin54.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.54]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA10966; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:21:17 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38D1A6B8.1F7AD8AB@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:30:00 -0700 STAR1SHIP@aol.com wrote: > > > Since your waiting on earth for someone else to provide you a good reusable > orbital launch vehicle, it would be reasonable to assume you think like NASA > does of space ships as high flying airplanes. I think of real space ships as > deep-space ships. > I think of space-ships as both near ( interplanetary ) and far ( deep ) space craft. > With your attitude, you will remain ground bounded referred to derogatorily > by "deep spacers" as "a ground bounder." It would seem that the title of this > mailing list is misnamed starship-design. I hope not... How will I ever see my 3.125 square miles of Mars. > > Making for the moment the silly assumption that my engine will not do as I > claim, I propose the following open ended proposition to all list members. > > > Concerned, > Pretend we have a working engine to take to the stars at a constant one-g. > This is false statement in my belief, but I don't have the math skills to prove you wrong. Propulsion is not the limiting factor, rather clearing the path of planetary debris, through stellar systems. I am guessing this will place a limit of < .01 C unless a bastard jet design becomes practical, with <.25C for a bastard jet. > To get public funding for a star journey requires a complete package as did > the programs for orbiting man around the earth or landing man on the moon > prior to construction. > > Pretend that soon someone will invent a working starship engine, providing > heat, light, water artificial gravity, and a protective shell as (I claim to > have already invented), What can this group provide as content? > > Can this group fill the empty payload space with matter to say provide for a > mixed sex crew of 20 for a simple non returning journey whose mission is a > lifelong journey on the ship, or to a star planetoid so barren that an > underground cave must be adapted air tight for colonization as a minimum > requirement till crew life's end? > That is the risk the explores take. 50 people is the biological minimum number of people to survive on the short term. > > What would be needed as beginning supplies should they find a planet to land > on that the crew can prosper and multiply?. > > What technology exists today that you would be conformable living the > remainder of your life in? > > Recycled garbage and human waste as food does not appeal to me, though I am > no against feeding it to the plants and animals on the soil (for export to > barren world) on board. What seed stock and frozen embryos and DNA clonable > samples and soil matter reduced (not containing obtainable ground rock) ? > Nor does green- algae appeal either, a few more items in the food web could not hurt. The reason that a closed living environment looks complex, is that we are useto getting things free since Cave Man times... Need a new stone knife, throw out the old, and find a new rock. One does not fuse all the broken stone chips together to make a new stone. > Assume complete independence from earth (information travels to slow between > stars to be useful-still pretending my FTL engine not workable) so what CD's > of library knowledge, minimal trade crafts, food, and plants, soil and > animals would you take to the stars. > That is a hard question, with no easy answers. This is a job for "Bio-Dome" man. > > List by weight next to the item. > The total weight I or a future inventor can then use to design the engine > specs make the engine to power such a workable mission. > > Should the crew be condemned prisoners or starship--design list members. There is a difference? grin. > Will I have to drag mankind to the stars kicking and screaming? > Yes you will because most men want to stay home and grumble. > Engine aside, can you draw a working diagram of the payload system that is > buildable with present technology or do I have to provide everything to be > credible? > > Remember the fickle public funding freaks require a complete list of items of > a working package with no unknowns. > > I expect the members of this group to have done some original homework as > regards the above. If not then perhaps a list name change to star > travel-is-impossible@lists.. would be appropriate. > > I am not the general public and am conformable with unknowns you may provide. > Please separate applied technology (conventional known technology) from > theoretical (hypothesis) in your response. Please take some care with syntax > usage (time case of past, present, future). > Since I am a computer programmer ,I only have no great technology skills many of the fields required, but just a curiosity in many of the fields. As a hobbies I like to design digital projects, but I have no cash for any large projects like a 24 bit TTL computer from only logic gates and flip-flops. Say 500 TTL packages. Now back to the topic at hand. I think we need have both a star-ship and inter-planetary design mailing lists. I believe in planetary and later stellar travel other wise I would be in the Gock_for_Spock mailing lists. Now is the Golden Age of Star travel... Ben. > > Regards, > Tom > -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Fri Mar 17 16:36:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["696" "Friday" "17" "March" "2000" "19:34:31" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "27" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 696 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14838 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:35:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14823 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:35:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.a6.1cfc067 (3319); Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:34:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca, STAR1SHIP@aol.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:34:31 EST In a message dated 3/16/00 9:27:30 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >This is false statement in my belief, but I don't have the math skills >to prove you wrong. Propulsion is not the limiting factor, rather >clearing >the path of planetary debris, through stellar systems. I am guessing >this >will place a limit of < .01 C unless a bastard jet design becomes >practical, >with <.25C for a bastard jet. > ??! The fusion/maser based system I outlined in the Explorer class and fuel/sail pages on the LIT site could do 30%-40% of light speed. No ones going to launch a starship that only does .01 of light speed! It would take 450 years to get to Alpha centuri!! === >Ben. Kelly From VM Fri Mar 17 16:36:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1598" "Friday" "17" "March" "2000" "19:34:37" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "49" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1598 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14703 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:35:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14694 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:35:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.bc.29aaf66 (3319); Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:34:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:34:37 EST In a message dated 3/16/00 1:05:52 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> In a message dated 3/14/00 11:20:50 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >> >The way to do it is to keep the stress down on the components, by having >> >them >> >to work at a steady state. Being able to repair - reuse - recycle >> >components. >> >Finding a scale factor such that you are using the right size design, >as >> >a larger >> >ship ( to a point ) can mean less compact items. The best way to design >> >a inter-stellar star ship is to design a inter-planetary ship as that >> >will be the >> >stepping stone to the larger ship. >> > >> Ah, a interplanetary craft has little to nothinhg in common with a star >ship? >> How can you make one evolutionary from the other? > >I you mean I can't add a warp drive to a interplanetary ship and >leave the solar system. > >I see them having many common features with each other, as only the >size, propulsion ,and length of trips really differ. A interplanetary >ship to the outer planets with a fission power plant would be about >5 years duration in 2050 compared with 10 year interstellar trip >at .5C in 2150. By 2150 I'ld expect to see warp drives. And speeds to the outer solar system with fusion is expected to be months not years. You can get there in years with chemical craft! A interplanetart craft out for a couple years at most is a long way short of a decasdes flight capable craft, with extreamly high speed capacity. >We really need a interplanetary ship design section too. We tried, no interest. >Ben. Kelly From VM Fri Mar 17 16:36:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3222" "Friday" "17" "March" "2000" "19:34:34" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "112" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3222 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14908 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:36:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14899 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:36:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.4e.2fc97e6 (3319); Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:34:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4e.2fc97e6.2604291a@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:34:34 EST In a message dated 3/16/00 1:02:16 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> I remember the story, but the bottom line is why NOT use the new CPU's? > They >> arn't really more expensive, they are easier to use, and are far more >capable. >> > But only a few are space rated. Few programs try to space rate chips. Pesumably a starship program would. >> If their ain't a reason to bring people, we won't. We use better equipment, >> because it saves having to bring more less capable stuff up instead. > The >> fractal robotics could replace a ton of clamps, tooling, and robotics. >> > > Well then forget about people -- they have eat sleep and mate every so >often. Just build a nice AI computer and send that to run the ship. If it could do it, no one would be talking about people. >> Ah, have you checked out the stuff NASA's been launching the last few >decades? >Is bigger better? Seems better/cheaper/faster isn't. >> Where are you talking about going? Families?! For exploration? >> > >Yes Families for exploration, Man has ALLWAYS taken his family along. Always?! Lewis and clark, Stanly and Livingston, Coulumbus, etc. Where do you get always? Or even frequently? >> --- space craft design --- >> > >> Thats awflly expensive and clubsey. We have a lot better and cheaper >stuf >> collecting dust on the shelves. >> > >All the current stuff is disposable and expensive... 500 million for >a shuttle launch. Can't wait for the "Fusion" powered launch vehicles. NOI NO NO. I mean current designs like Space Access' Ejector ramjet to Mach 6 then boost to orbit or stage to orbit. DC-X designs. Etc. You don't want to take a jump back to cruder dsigns, and of course you won't use the 1950's expendables dsigns, or '60's70ish shuttle. >> And how do you pay for that antimater? Just make a straight fusion reactor >> and forget about it. > >I use a fusion reactor -- it is called the sun -- to make the >anti-matter. To expensive, and complex. >Anti-matter catalyzed fusion will probability come before straight >fusion, Why? Regular fusion research (ignoring the DOE work) has shown excelent results. Its generally assumed we could get fusin in a decades or two if we tried. Space is thought to be a "Market" that could support it. >> NO WAY. No one is going to fund one way missions! You can't kill off >your >> crews at missions end to save yourself the fuel bill. And don't even >try the >> colony give. You bviously ae demanmding tech WAY below the level that >could >> even think about independany colonies. > >I don't plan to kill off the people at the end of mission. == Then what do you propose? They can't live there, the ship can't support them forever? So where do they go? Out the airlock? >For practical >purposes >it will be a one way mission because of the long separation from Earth. >My design plan is to start of with the minimum possible and then expand >to >comfortable level. We just differ on what is comfortable. We differ in what we consider acceptable and practical. If it takes to long to get the crew back alive - build a faster ship. You can't get funding for a one way missin. > >Ben. Kelly From VM Fri Mar 17 16:37:47 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2167" "Friday" "17" "March" "2000" "19:34:29" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "63" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2167 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14670 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:35:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14659 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:35:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.16.1d61765 (3319); Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:34:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <16.1d61765.26042915@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:34:29 EST In a message dated 3/16/00 12:04:53 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> Totally wrong. Folks like to think that its all been written down, but >it >> ain't true. A lot of it is "cultural knowledge" of the manufacturers >as well >> as years of training. You can't just pull out a book on how to build >a >> IC and start churning them out. Past that it takes whole cites full >of >> people and factories to build all the things a ship would need. You >can't >> carry all that gear with you. >> > >I disagree -- you have to carry a boot strap able system. > >All that stuff could fit in a large space craft the catch is it is not >economic >to have small systems and you may have to reduce operating perimeters. Now adays whole coutries can't get enough people to be self suficenty. You expect a few hudred folks in a ship to do it? >Take solid state logic... A portable chip processing plant could >be table top size, but may have to use 2 inch wafers, be limited to 64kb >x 1 >dynamic ram,16 bit processors ,or smaller and only produce 256 chips a >day. Where do you get this idea from? And do you consider the rest of the factry to turn those wafers into stacks of usable chips? Then stacks of circut board? Circut board designers? System designers/manufacturing? >Remember too, that the environment has changed too, with say 1000 people >on a space craft, or planetary base, demands of the things needed will >be a lot different than back on earth. It is only within the last 50 >years >that we really have lost the ability to be independent. Actually the demands will be higher in the sartificial environment of the ship. Much less the fact the ship will be presumably doing exploration and researh, which takes more exotic equipment. >A robotic - mining factory with only 25 people for exotic material might >make >a stock-holders rich,but will not do much for colonizing a planet. Your point? We can't colonize any planets we find out there. Even if we could, since we can't make the starship self suficent, supporting the remote colony from here would be even more impossible. > >Ben. Kelly From VM Fri Mar 17 17:16:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["298" "Friday" "17" "March" "2000" "19:07:22" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "9" "RE: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 298 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA29450 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:09:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA29442 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:09:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p470.gnt.com [204.49.91.86]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id TAA05346; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:09:21 -0600 Message-ID: <004201bf9076$87c182d0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <16.1d61765.26042915@aol.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Cc: Subject: RE: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:07:22 -0600 > Your point? We can't colonize any planets we find out there. > Even if we > could, since we can't make the starship self suficent, > supporting the remote > colony from here would be even more impossible. There is a tantalizing string of truth here somewhere...a larger idea... L. Parker From VM Fri Mar 17 17:16:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2161" "Friday" "17" "March" "2000" "18:15:49" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "59" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2161 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA00233 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:12:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA00227 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:12:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin62.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.62]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA29034 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:06:56 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38D2D8C5.3891A9E1@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <16.1d61765.26042915@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:15:49 -0700 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > Now adays whole coutries can't get enough people to be self suficenty. You > expect a few hudred folks in a ship to do it? > I guess I have read too much "Mother Earth News" in my youth. Countries have different resource bases, Canada is great for wheat, lousy for Bananas. One Could grow them in green houses, but it cheaper to trade wheat for bananas. ( Fictional example ). To recycle costs more ( $ wise ) than to throw out and buy new raw material. > > Where do you get this idea from? And do you consider the rest of the factry > to turn those wafers into stacks of usable chips? Then stacks of circut > board? Circut board designers? System designers/manufacturing? > Nope -- use for repair of damaged equipment. Solid state logic lasts a long time, providing 1) operates cool 2) Not pressured to by a new product from M$ or Intel. > > Actually the demands will be higher in the sartificial environment of the > ship. Much less the fact the ship will be presumably doing exploration and > researh, which takes more exotic equipment. > What is sacrificial about the equipment? It breaks -- repair it. Just avoid the "Green Slime Creatures". I assume by this time in-system transport is fast and reliable, with asteroid mining down pat for raw materials. > > >A robotic - mining factory with only 25 people for exotic material might > >make > >a stock-holders rich,but will not do much for colonizing a planet. > > Your point? We can't colonize any planets we find out there. Even if we > could, since we can't make the starship self suficent, supporting the remote > colony from here would be even more impossible. By 2150? I assume that we would have self-sufficient colonies on other planets and they would be more supportive than mother Earth. Si-fi break --- the United federation of planets ( star trek ) was just that until warp drive was discovered. Nasa does not make $$$, why must I? -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2648" "Friday" "17" "March" "2000" "18:48:14" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "82" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "[Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2648 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA10682 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:44:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA10640 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:44:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin62.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.62]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA00765 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:39:21 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38D2E05E.2238BDC4@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4e.2fc97e6.2604291a@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:48:14 -0700 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > Always?! Lewis and clark, Stanly and Livingston, Coulumbus, etc. Where do > you get always? Or even frequently? > Remember that Women are not permitted in the NAVY and or ARMY or as DOCTORS in those prehistoric times. I guess I have been reading to much of "Geodyssey" series by Piers Anthony. > > NOI NO NO. I mean current designs like Space Access' Ejector ramjet to Mach > 6 then boost to orbit or stage to orbit. DC-X designs. Etc. > Rotary Rocket and LightCraft are the only ones that look to be ready in the near future.+3 years. The other STO's are still several years away. > You don't want to take a jump back to cruder dsigns, and of course you won't > use the 1950's expendables dsigns, or '60's70ish shuttle. > The shuttle's design is that way because of political influence, a smaller lighter fully reusable shuttle could have been built then, but the USA had/has no plans for a permanent space station. > >> And how do you pay for that antimater? Just make a straight fusion reactor > >> and forget about it. > > > >I use a fusion reactor -- it is called the sun -- to make the > >anti-matter. > > To expensive, and complex. > Anti-matter is real now...Boom !!! was real. Fusion is not. > > >Anti-matter catalyzed fusion will probability come before straight > >fusion, > > Why? Regular fusion research (ignoring the DOE work) has shown excelent > results. Its generally assumed we could get fusin in a decades or two if we > tried. Space is thought to be a "Market" that could support it. > That fusion has always been "10" years away since the 1960's. Your fusion designs seem to the most probable of the lot of designs. > > Then what do you propose? They can't live there, the ship can't support them > forever? So where do they go? Out the airlock? > That is one of the advantages of self- suffentcy, you can build a new habitat. I would assume they die of old age, with children replacing the elders. Once in a new star system raw materials needed would be easily found. That is one reason the unmanned probe was sent earlier, to give the basic facts of the solar system. > We differ in what we consider acceptable and practical. If it takes to long > to get the crew back alive - build a faster ship. You can't get funding for > a one way missin. Funding is a big problem as investors always think of the next 6 months rather than the next 6 years. > > Kelly -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["10854" "Friday" "17" "March" "2000" "20:46:17" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "271" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 10854 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA12020 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:47:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA12007 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:47:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.26.323e721 (3968); Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:46:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <26.323e721.260439e9@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 31 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:46:17 EST In a message dated 3/16/00 7:27:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: > STAR1SHIP@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > Since your waiting on earth for someone else to provide you a good > reusable > > orbital launch vehicle, it would be reasonable to assume you think like > NASA > > does of space ships as high flying airplanes. I think of real space ships > as > > deep-space ships. > > > > I think of space-ships as both near ( interplanetary ) and far ( deep ) > space craft. Good thinking. I have no objection to you using my deep space craft engine for solar planetary exploration. > > > With your attitude, you will remain ground bounded referred to > derogatorily > > by "deep spacers" as "a ground bounder." It would seem that the title of > this > > mailing list is misnamed starship-design. > > I hope not... How will I ever see my 3.125 square miles of Mars. Well, if I get there first with my ship built of nonpublic or nonnational funding, then by the legal principle of imminent domain I will declare the Mars territory "mine" legally voiding prior claims such as yours. For a hefty fee I may allow you to see your 3.125 square miles. > > > > > Making for the moment the silly assumption that my engine will not do as I > > claim, I propose the following open ended proposition to all list members. > > > > > > Concerned, > > Pretend we have a working engine to take to the stars at a constant one-g. > > > > This is false statement in my belief, but I don't have the math skills > to prove you wrong. Those Ph.D's with max math skills have failed to prove me wrong. Attempts are easily debunked. 1-g is a design specification I used met by my engine. It provides an artificial gravity passengers are conformable with. Coasting to the stars while flopping around in zero g for years is not desirable. Artificial gravity produced by a rotational axis pod makes one dizzy in time when the radius from the center is less than a mile. Great diameters are possible, However collision by increased surface area is not desirable. >Propulsion is not the limiting factor, rather > clearing > the path of planetary debris, through stellar systems. I am guessing > this > will place a limit of < .01 C unless a bastard jet design becomes > practical, > with <.25C for a bastard jet. Poor guess, I believe you are referring to a Bussard ram jet engine. The engine specification for 1950's Bussard's invention have been significantly improved since by many better engine designs and most significantly my 1989 invention of a plasma rocket engine. Had you training in probability and statistics there is effect called the "rain drop effect" proving the faster you travel between two points the less wet you get from particle "rain drop" collisions. Most of space matter collidable with has the source of the sun as source cause. Effects reduce by the square with each doubling of the distance from the source. (poorly said ;=). The deep space between stars and galaxies is mostly empty of matter and radiation (small background radiation mostly). That star light arrives from billions of light years distance without obstruction is convincing evidence and proof of this. > > > To get public funding for a star journey requires a complete package as > did > > the programs for orbiting man around the earth or landing man on the moon > > prior to construction. > > > > Pretend that soon someone will invent a working starship engine, providing > > heat, light, water artificial gravity, and a protective shell as (I claim > to > > have already invented), What can this group provide as content? > > > > Can this group fill the empty payload space with matter to say provide for > a > > mixed sex crew of 20 for a simple non returning journey whose mission is a > > lifelong journey on the ship, or to a star planetoid so barren that an > > underground cave must be adapted air tight for colonization as a minimum > > requirement till crew life's end? > > > That is the risk the explores take. 50 people is the biological minimum > number > of people to survive on the short term. Educated guess but I question the credibility based on past experience in exploring new worlds across the Bearing straights, and ships coming to America, migration of human and animals to unknown earthly frontiers. Do you have a source for your info as it is close to the educated quess I made? I would be interested in closer examination of the minimum requirement figures. Many prior misssions colonizing America with higher numbers have failed to survive for one reason or another. Until I know better or am shown other wise, The list starts with 20 individuals with me as the commander (my engine and my bonafide license to drive it). > > > > What would be needed as beginning supplies should they find a planet to > land > > on that the crew can prosper and multiply?. > > > > What technology exists today that you would be conformable living the > > remainder of your life in? > > > > Recycled garbage and human waste as food does not appeal to me, though I > am > > no against feeding it to the plants and animals on the soil (for export to > > barren world) on board. What seed stock and frozen embryos and DNA > clonable > > samples and soil matter reduced (not containing obtainable ground rock) ? > > > > Nor does green- algae appeal either, a few more items in the food web > could not > hurt. I welcome your menu suggestions. : List please. >The reason that a closed living environment looks complex, is that > we > are useto getting things free since Cave Man times... Need a new stone > knife, > throw out the old, and find a new rock. One does not fuse all the broken > stone > chips together to make a new stone. Well said. We need to find a new rock (earth). What type of closed travel environment would you suggest. > > > Assume complete independence from earth (information travels to slow > between > > stars to be useful-still pretending my FTL engine not workable) so what CD' > s > > of library knowledge, minimal trade crafts, food, and plants, soil and > > animals would you take to the stars. > > > > That is a hard question, with no easy answers. > This is a job for "Bio-Dome" man. Can you give source knowledge of parts list of the present bio dome. Atomic subs that stay underwater water for up to a years may provide a good starting place for a list of supplies life support systems by weight and item description and a comfortable prison space requirement provides a volume guess. What is the best terrarium technology. Extrapolation numbers to the 50 years life (assuming the starting age of 20) can give a working diagram of payload system I requested. Can you provide detailed list or link to the info? > > > > > List by weight next to the item. > > The total weight I or a future inventor can then use to design the engine > > specs make the engine to power such a workable mission. > > > > > Should the crew be condemned prisoners or starship--design list members. > > There is a difference? grin. Ha!! > > > Will I have to drag mankind to the stars kicking and screaming? > > > Yes you will because most men want to stay home and grumble. I am looking for the computer code (HTML), for now, used by some to cause the reader of an e-mail or newsgroup post that cause the reader to be transferred by hyperlink to a site Example--my cybership starship without his clicking on a link. Benign kidnapping and transport to my site :=). Do you know of the code. > > > Engine aside, can you draw a working diagram of the payload system that is > > buildable with present technology or do I have to provide everything to be > > credible? > > > > Remember the fickle public funding freaks require a complete list of items > of > > a working package with no unknowns. > > > > I expect the members of this group to have done some original homework as > > regards the above. If not then perhaps a list name change to star > > travel-is-impossible@lists.. would be appropriate. > > > > I am not the general public and am conformable with unknowns you may > provide. > > Please separate applied technology (conventional known technology) from > > theoretical (hypothesis) in your response. Please take some care with > syntax > > usage (time case of past, present, future). > > > > Since I am a computer programmer ,I only have no great technology skills > many of the fields required, but just a curiosity in many of the fields. > As a hobbies I like to design digital projects, but I have no cash for > any large projects like a 24 bit TTL computer from only logic gates and > flip-flops. Say 500 TTL packages. Interesting but no cash is not a limiting factor for large projects. The first rule of engineering is that all machines are expandable or reducible in size depending on how big or small we can make the parts. I overcame the cash requirement it to research and develop my atomic rocket. In your topic of super computers, I used no cash while I worked for Seagate engineering reliability lab in 1993. My 386 workstation PC was inked to 100 - 386,486 pc CPUs stripped of their monitors and keyboards, novel linked and power supply enhanced each CPU to handle 6 hard drives (600 total) ranging in size from 300 MB to 1.2 gigabyte. I built the thing and wrote the automation programs to test the drives and each was blinking constantly and sending data to my CPU unit for processing. Many trillions of bytes of data daily were analyzed for error and reliability data and a printed report produced each day. Small potatoes now, but it was one of the first super computers to handle that amount of data daily. I automated so well, I could almost hit a key each morning when I walked in to start retesting and then hit a key to produce the printed summary report of the previous nights test (already compiled by bat file and printed. I lost that job when production was sent to Singapore and now many Chinese do the same task... ;:) >.Now back to the topic at hand. > > I think we need have both a star-ship and interplanetary design > mailing lists. I believe in planetary and later stellar travel > other wise I would be in the Gock_for_Spock mailing lists. > Now is the Golden Age of Star travel... > Ben. An interplanetary designed engine will not always work for stellar travel. A galactic and stellar ship will always work well for our solar system planetary travel. Why not focus resources on one (my galactic engine)? > > Regards, > > Tom Plasma Rocket Engine From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7978" "Friday" "17" "March" "2000" "21:47:05" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "207" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7978 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA23223 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:43:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA23210 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:43:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin62.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.62]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA09597; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 21:38:11 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38D30A49.7C521CCF@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <26.323e721.260439e9@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 21:47:05 -0700 STAR1SHIP@aol.com wrote: > Well, if I get there first with my ship built of nonpublic or nonnational > funding, then by the legal principle of imminent domain I will declare the > Mars territory "mine" legally voiding prior claims such as yours. For a hefty > fee I may allow you to see your 3.125 square miles. That is a good point, and that is what most likely will happen to my land. > > This is false statement in my belief, but I don't have the math skills > > to prove you wrong. > It provides an artificial gravity passengers are conformable with. > Coasting to the stars while flopping around in zero g for years is not > desirable. Artificial gravity produced by a rotational axis pod makes one > dizzy in time when the radius from the center is less than a mile. Great > diameters are possible, However collision by increased surface area is not > desirable. > While 1 g a good way to design a ship, any engine must expend a large amount of energy to keep at the 1 g level thrust. Finding the equation just recently Power (in watts) = ISP ( impulse ) * 9.8 ( g ) * N ( newtons of thrust ) / 2. Any propulsion system would require MAMMOTH amounts of power. Heat dissipation is the limiting factor here. > > Poor guess, I believe you are referring to a Bussard ram jet engine. The > engine specification for 1950's Bussard's invention have been significantly > improved since by many better engine designs and most significantly my 1989 > invention of a plasma rocket engine. Yep a guess at this point. > > Had you training in probability and statistics there is effect called the > "rain drop effect" proving the faster you travel between two points the less > wet you get from particle "rain drop" collisions. Never heard of that. More information on the rot cloud is needed here. Dust is no problem --- large rocks are. Most of space matter > collidable with has the source of the sun as source cause. Effects reduce by > the square with each doubling of the distance from the source. (poorly said > ;=). The deep space between stars and galaxies is mostly empty of matter and > radiation (small background radiation mostly). That star light arrives from > billions of light years distance without obstruction is convincing evidence > and proof of this. > The galaxy is were I want to travel. > > Educated guess but I question the credibility based on past experience in > exploring new worlds across the Bearing straights, and ships coming to > America, migration of human and animals to unknown earthly frontiers. Do you > have a source for your info as it is close to the educated quess I made? I > would be interested in closer examination of the minimum requirement figures. > Many prior misssions colonizing America with higher numbers have failed to > survive for one reason or another. > I got the 50 people figure from anthropological studies. 50 people is minimum number in a family-tribe-group. Also a generation is about 33 years. (baby ->adult ->grandmother). The settling of the pacific ocean may provide a good exploration model. > > Until I know better or am shown other wise, The list starts with 20 > individuals with me as the commander (my engine and my bonafide license to > drive it). > Hey wait a minute, I thought you were moving to Mars... ( grin ). > > > I welcome your menu suggestions. : List please. > > Hydrophobic gardening, and some rabbits,birds,cats,dogs and fish as well as pussy willows and algae ( for water filtering ) and some dwarf trees. Miniature pigs,cows,sheep, horses optional. Some animals may need to be genetically altered like slower breeding rabbits. Mechanical processes would cover things handled by microbes and buffering of environmental variables, O2 , water vapor, CO2,heat,light. > Well said. We need to find a new rock (earth). What type of closed travel > environment would you suggest. One with a lot of "organic" reminders. A small beach with real waves and tropical plants. A mountain-top with snow. A jungle hut. In deep space a marble floor would be a very rare item. Plastic,wood,metal would be common. Stone,clay,ceramics rare. Paper and ink and fiber would be a scarcer commodity than currently available. Money would not be not all computer funds but some other "Hard" currency. Historical products would command a high value. > > Can you give source knowledge of parts list of the present bio dome. > Nope, but I do know they say it failed because microbes in the soil kept using up all the O2 and they had to bring in more O2. > Atomic > subs that stay underwater water for up to a years may provide a good starting > place for a list of supplies life support systems by weight and item > description and a comfortable prison space requirement provides a volume > guess. They import all the food, dump waste into the ocean and NEVER permit woman on board. > What is the best terrarium technology. Extrapolation numbers to the 50 > years life (assuming the starting age of 20) can give a working diagram of > payload system I requested. Can you provide detailed list or link to the info? > No not at this time,but hydroponics is well understood. It is the food web life cycle chain that is not. > > > > > > List by weight next to the item. > > > The total weight I or a future inventor can then use to design the engine > > > specs make the engine to power such a workable mission. > > > > > > > > Should the crew be condemned prisoners or starship--design list members. > > > > There is a difference? grin. > > Ha!! > > > > > > Will I have to drag mankind to the stars kicking and screaming? > > > > > > Yes you will because most men want to stay home and grumble. > > I am looking for the computer code (HTML), for now, used by some to cause the > reader of an e-mail or newsgroup post that cause the reader to be transferred > by hyperlink to a site Example--my cybership starship without his clicking on > a link. Benign kidnapping and transport to my site :=). Do you know of the > code. Nope. Study a email virus that kills your hard drive and substitute "url" for "delete *.* " > Interesting but no cash is not a limiting factor for large projects. The > first rule of engineering is that all machines are expandable or reducible in > size depending on how big or small we can make the parts. My problem is that every time I design something with part XYZ, they stopped making that part 3 years earlier. While I can never produce the chip, there is some interesting "free" semi-custom chip software (linux) at : http://cobalt.et.tudelft.nl/software/ocean/ ---- + Available for free, including all source code. + Short learning curve making it suitable for student design courses. + Hierarchical (full-custom-like) layout style on sea-of-gates. + Powerful tools for placement, routing, simulation and extraction. + Any combination of automatic and interactive manual layout. + OCEAN can handle even the largest designs. + Running on popular HP, Sun and 386/486/Pentium PC machines, easy installation. + Includes three sea-of-gates images with libraries and a 200.000 transistor sea-of-gates chip. ---- For a real Space designed cpu -- check this site out. http://www.estec.esa.nl/wsmwww/erc32/ A space rated? forth processor http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~koopman/stack_computers/sec5_2.html#525 > > An interplanetary designed engine will not always work for stellar travel. A > galactic and stellar ship will always work well for our solar system > planetary travel. Why not focus resources on one (my galactic engine)? > It is hard to focus on space resources, when there is no orbital delivery system yet. $25 lb payload cost would be nice, not $25,000. Ben. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["678" "Friday" "17" "March" "2000" "20:56:16" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "14" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 678 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA26067 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:56:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA26059 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:56:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2I4uR009950 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:56:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2I4uNB13586; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:56:23 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14547.3184.976523.471111@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <38D30A49.7C521CCF@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <26.323e721.260439e9@aol.com> <38D30A49.7C521CCF@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:56:16 -0800 (PST) Ben Franchuk writes: > Finding the equation just recently Power (in watts) = ISP ( impulse ) > * 9.8 ( g ) * N ( newtons of thrust ) / 2. Any propulsion system > would require MAMMOTH amounts of power. Heat dissipation is the limiting > factor here. As has been pointed out before, fuel is the real limiting factor. Fusion power is barely capable of driving a ship to relativistic speeds with large, but not completely untenable, fuel-to-payload ratios. Talking about building an interstellar spacecraft that uses fission power is just plain ludicrous. There isn't enough fissible material in the solar system to power a spacecraft at 1 g acceleration for a whole year. From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2692" "Friday" "17" "March" "2000" "23:56:33" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "78" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2692 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA26276 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:57:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA26270 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:57:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.a2.1e3b414 (7359) for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 23:56:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 23:56:33 EST In a message dated 3/17/00 7:12:44 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> Now adays whole coutries can't get enough people to be self suficenty. > You >> expect a few hudred folks in a ship to do it? >> > >I guess I have read too much "Mother Earth News" in my youth. Sounds like. ;) Seting up a little cabin in woods is a bit differnt then a space colony orboiting another star. To be fair even the Mother Jones types arn't as independant of the technological society as they like to consider. >Countries >have different resource bases, Canada is great for wheat, lousy for >Bananas. >One Could grow them in green houses, but it cheaper to trade wheat for >bananas. >( Fictional example ). To recycle costs more ( $ wise ) than to throw >out >and buy new raw material. Even pasty that, they don't have the population resources to build and maintain a technical society. >> Where do you get this idea from? And do you consider the rest of the >factry >> to turn those wafers into stacks of usable chips? Then stacks of circut >> board? Circut board designers? System designers/manufacturing? >> > Nope -- use for repair of damaged equipment. Solid state logic >lasts a long time, providing 1) operates cool >2) Not pressured to by a new product from M$ or Intel. So your not planing on being self sufficent. Just a encampment dependant >> Actually the demands will be higher in the artificial environment of >the >> ship. Much less the fact the ship will be presumably doing exploration >and >> researh, which takes more exotic equipment. >> > > What is artificial about the equipment? It breaks -- repair it. Just >avoid the "Green Slime Creatures". I assume by this time in-system >transport is fast and reliable, with asteroid mining down pat for raw >materials. Again. IC chips, alloys, complex machinery, etc are not something to be fixed by home handymen without equipment. >> >A robotic - mining factory with only 25 people for exotic material might >> >make >> >a stock-holders rich,but will not do much for colonizing a planet. >> >> Your point? We can't colonize any planets we find out there. Even if >we >> could, since we can't make the starship self suficent, supporting the >remote >> colony from here would be even more impossible. > >By 2150? I assume that we would have self-sufficient colonies on other >planets >and they would be more supportive than mother Earth. Why would they be more supportive? If anything a interstellar colony would compete with them for resources from earth. Self sufficent colonies would take millions of people. Oh, and why would we settle that many people on them? Kelly From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3160" "Friday" "17" "March" "2000" "23:56:36" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "103" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "[Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3160 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA26293 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:57:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA26288 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:57:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.4c.2fa45f2 (7359) for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 23:56:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4c.2fa45f2.26046684@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 23:56:36 EST In a message dated 3/17/00 7:45:52 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> Always?! Lewis and clark, Stanly and Livingston, Coulumbus, etc. Where >do >> you get always? Or even frequently? >> > >Remember that Women are not permitted in the NAVY and or ARMY or as >DOCTORS in those prehistoric times. I guess I have been reading to much >of "Geodyssey" series by Piers Anthony. Try reading more real history. ;) >> NOI NO NO. I mean current designs like Space Access' Ejector ramjet >to Mach >> 6 then boost to orbit or stage to orbit. DC-X designs. Etc. >> > >Rotary Rocket and LightCraft are the only ones that look to be ready in >the near future.+3 years. The other SSTO's are still several years away. Actually neiather are doing that well. Space Access is doing pretty well, and they completed the ground tests of the most critical parts. Namely the ejector ramjets. They alone are a dramatic improvement over Rotary or most of the other designs. Who's lightcraft by the way? >> You don't want to take a jump back to cruder dsigns, and of course you >won't >> use the 1950's expendables dsigns, or '60's70ish shuttle. >> > >The shuttle's design is that way because of political influence, >a smaller lighter fully reusable shuttle could have been built then, but >the >USA had/has no plans for a permanent space station. And still hasn't. >> >> And how do you pay for that antimater? Just make a straight fusion >reactor >> >> and forget about it. >> > >> >I use a fusion reactor -- it is called the sun -- to make the >> >anti-matter. >> >> To expensive, and complex. >> > >Anti-matter is real now...Boom !!! was real. >Fusion is not. We've done fusion, and can do so in larger quantity then antimater. >> >Anti-matter catalyzed fusion will probability come before straight >> >fusion, >> >> Why? Regular fusion research (ignoring the DOE work) has shown excelent >> results. Its generally assumed we could get fusin in a decades or two >if we >> tried. Space is thought to be a "Market" that could support it. >> > >That fusion has always been "10" years away since the 1960's. Your >fusion designs seem to the most probable of the lot of designs. Since no one has any pressing reason to build on, no one ever really started the 10 year program. >> Then what do you propose? They can't live there, the ship can't support >them >> forever? So where do they go? Out the airlock? >> > That is one of the advantages of self- suffentcy, you can build a new >habitat. == Sorry, you can't do self suficency in any feasably sized mission. Even if you could, abandoning a crew in a deralict ship in orbit around another star is not going to go over well with the public back home. > >> We differ in what we consider acceptable and practical. If it takes >to long >> to get the crew back alive - build a faster ship. You can't get funding >for >> a one way missin. > >Funding is a big problem as investors always think of the next 6 months >rather than the next 6 years. Interstellar exploration won't interest any investors. It couldn't return anything marketable. Kelly From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1414" "Friday" "17" "March" "2000" "22:33:45" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "33" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1414 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA04837 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 21:30:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA04830 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 21:30:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin62.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.62]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA11831; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 22:24:50 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38D31539.9A83AB79@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <26.323e721.260439e9@aol.com> <38D30A49.7C521CCF@jetnet.ab.ca> <14547.3184.976523.471111@localhost.efn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Steve VanDevender CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 22:33:45 -0700 Steve VanDevender wrote: > > Ben Franchuk writes: > > Finding the equation just recently Power (in watts) = ISP ( impulse ) > > * 9.8 ( g ) * N ( newtons of thrust ) / 2. Any propulsion system > > would require MAMMOTH amounts of power. Heat dissipation is the limiting > > factor here. I don't claim a power-source here,but this is the limiting factor regardless of the power source. Fusion is the most likely power source but a tiny black-hole would give the most matter to energy conversion factor. I am not thinking of a real black hole, but more of high compression of matter, with densities near white dwarf material. Anti-matter is hard to produce but not much work has been done in this field. I belive beta+ reactions produce anti-electrons but the reaction is slow. > As has been pointed out before, fuel is the real limiting factor. > Fusion power is barely capable of driving a ship to relativistic speeds > with large, but not completely untenable, fuel-to-payload ratios. > Talking about building an interstellar spacecraft that uses fission > power is just plain ludicrous. There isn't enough fissible material in > the solar system to power a spacecraft at 1 g acceleration for a whole > year. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4829" "Saturday" "18" "March" "2000" "01:11:26" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "96" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4829 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA12576 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 22:12:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA12569 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 22:12:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id s.3e.1cf5a7a (4331); Sat, 18 Mar 2000 01:11:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3e.1cf5a7a.2604780e@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 31 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stevev@efn.org CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 01:11:26 EST In a message dated 3/17/00 8:56:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, stevev@efn.org writes: > Ben Franchuk writes: > > Finding the equation just recently Power (in watts) = ISP ( impulse ) > > * 9.8 ( g ) * N ( newtons of thrust ) / 2. Any propulsion system > > would require MAMMOTH amounts of power. Heat dissipation is the limiting > > factor here. > > As has been pointed out before, fuel is the real limiting factor. > Fusion power is barely capable of driving a ship to relativistic speeds > with large, but not completely untenable, fuel-to-payload ratios. > Talking about building an interstellar spacecraft that uses fission > power is just plain ludicrous. Present fusion reactors (surprise) like breeder reactors that by fusion reactions produce plutonium239 and Americium241 from U235 are common. Almost all atomic reactions contain fusion and fission products to a lesser or greater degree. Attempts at containing fusion power at high enough level to be useful have failed for the plasma escapes all known 3 dimensional confinement. I noticed that the plasma leak from attempts could be enlarged, focused and contained becoming a fusion reaction contained in two dimensions without problems. In lay terms thing of a fire cracker containing a chemical reaction until the three dimensional container (paper wrap bursts) compared to a broken firecracker lit that fizzes because it is now a two dimensional container like all rocket engines. This leak effect combined with the China syndrome principle are the physics my engine works on. The atomic reaction is successfully contained in two dimensions as defined by a rocket engine and differs from the 3 dimensional containment of reactors or bombs. As with known bomb and reactor fusion and fusion reactions, my plasma from Americium 241 above critical mass contain mostly fusion compared to fission reactions. The liquid propellant (water) exposed to the plasma temperatures has mainly fission (hydrogen) with some fusion products. The higher the plasma temperature the smaller the fission parts. > There isn't enough fissible material in > the solar system to power a spacecraft at 1 g acceleration for a whole > year. Even were my "fusion drive" very low efficiency aboard my 105 ton craft only 1/2 ton of americium 241 need to be converted to the energy required to accelerate the 100 tons of propellant causing the 5 ton payload to approach light speed relativistically to earth observer and with time dilation effects greater than light speed wrt to the ship for just such an acceleration. Practically the exhaust stream needs detuned splaying the exhaust reducing the acceleration to maintain a constant 1 g. this makes 1 ton converted necessary for the 50% exhaust efficiency. As with most atomic machines the ratio of radioactive metal mass vs the mass converted is not 1:1 but 10 :1 is more reasonably expected and 5:1 (20% efficiency) more probable. With my design the 5 tons plasma fuel (americium 241) not converted become part of the propellant and ejected providing propulsion. This allows the payload to be the 5 tons for crew and life support systems and not part of the payload side of the general rocket equation: (Mass times Velocity) of payload = (Mass times Velocity) of exhaust. The energy equations used are E=1/2 MV, and E=MC^2 , P=MV, V=d/t, and V=gT and are the determining factors for the velocities my rocket can obtain with E=energy. P=momentum, V= velocity, g = 1 gravity (32 ft/sec^2, V=velocity, d=distance traveled, T and t= time. Relativistic equations can be used for observer effects and time dilation at calculated velocities. Recall all aboard the craft even appears normal wrt the ship crew regardsless of the velocity (Basic posulate of relativity) The equation Power (in watts) = ISP ( impulse ) * 9.8 ( g ) * N ( newtons of thrust ) / 2 are not used as they are ISP equations for chemical rockets based constants determined on measured power ratios of chemical rockets reactions vs velocity. They have no real world comparison for atomic rockets with the single exception of some atomic rockets that expel the propellant instantaneously (like most chemical rockets) in a very short period of time compared to system time. The ISP measurements database does not even exist for atomic rockets beyond poor guesswork of the 1950's. The working equations are the ones I gave. The limiting difference in velocities is determined by momentum needed to be overcome which approaches infinity with machines using instantaneous acceleration. One violates (instantaneous) the laws of momentum and the other does not. Common particle accelerators are other examples using instantaneous acceleration. Regards, Tom > starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1710" "Friday" "17" "March" "2000" "23:54:08" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "46" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1710 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA17555 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 22:50:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA17550 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 22:50:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin62.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.62]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA14984; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 23:45:13 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38D32810.C15DEAD8@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3e.1cf5a7a.2604780e@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 23:54:08 -0700 STAR1SHIP@aol.com wrote: > The equation Power (in watts) = ISP ( impulse ) > * 9.8 ( g ) * N ( newtons of thrust ) / 2 are not used as they are ISP > equations for chemical rockets based constants determined on measured power > ratios of chemical rockets reactions vs velocity. I grabbed this equation from a Electrical Rocket description page. Power is still power.That is about 25 watts per ISP unit. 1 lb thrust for 24 hours with 1 lb of fuel is a ISP of 86,400. This is 2.160 MW's for 1 lb of thrust. But then this is the hard way of doing it since E=MV/2 for your numbers with the right conversion factor will give the power in watts. > They have no real world comparison for atomic rockets with the single > exception of some atomic rockets that expel the propellant instantaneously > (like most chemical rockets) in a very short period of time compared to > system time. The ISP measurements database does not even exist for atomic > rockets beyond poor guesswork of the 1950's. The working equations are the > ones I gave. The limiting difference in velocities is determined by momentum > needed to be overcome which approaches infinity with machines using > instantaneous acceleration. One violates (instantaneous) the laws of momentum > and the other does not. Common particle accelerators are other examples using > instantaneous acceleration. > As a believer in Auto-dynamics, SR has a momentum problem, AD does not. > > Regards, > Tom > > > > > > > starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > > -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1798" "Friday" "17" "March" "2000" "22:54:24" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "29" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1798 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18427 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 22:54:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA18422 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 22:54:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2I6sg028969 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 22:54:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2I6scZ17110; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 22:54:38 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14547.10272.325843.762253@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <3e.1cf5a7a.2604780e@aol.com> References: <3e.1cf5a7a.2604780e@aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 22:54:24 -0800 (PST) STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > As with known bomb and reactor fusion and fusion reactions, my plasma from > Americium 241 above critical mass contain mostly fusion compared to fission > reactions. The liquid propellant (water) exposed to the plasma temperatures > has mainly fission (hydrogen) with some fusion products. The higher the > plasma temperature the smaller the fission parts. Elements heavier than iron will only fuse if you put energy into the reaction. You aren't going to get fusion products out of Americium, only fission products. You seem to be deeply confused about the basics of nuclear fission and fusion. > Even were my "fusion drive" very low efficiency aboard my 105 ton craft only > 1/2 ton of americium 241 need to be converted to the energy required to > accelerate the 100 tons of propellant causing the 5 ton payload to approach > light speed relativistically to earth observer and with time dilation effects > greater than light speed wrt to the ship for just such an acceleration. Even if you were to indulge in your amusing habit of mixing Newtonian and relativistic physics, you would find that accelerating a payload to a high fraction of c requires a quantity of energy comparable to the mass of the payload converted _completely_ to energy. As a very rough approximation fission converts about 1/1000 of the mass of the fission fuel to energy, so 500 kg of fission fuel won't get you more than about 0.5 kg of mass converted to energy, and correspondingly won't accelerate even its own fission products to more than about 1/1000 c. It would accelerate your 5 ton payload considerably less. That's probably good enough for interplanetary velocities, but you're going to need a _lot_ more fuel than that to achieve relativistic velocities. From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["306" "Saturday" "18" "March" "2000" "00:00:39" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "8" "starship-design: A forgotton fusion inventor." "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: A forgotton fusion inventor." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 306 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18663 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 22:57:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA18657 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 22:57:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin62.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.62]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA15355; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 23:51:44 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38D32997.B202D058@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3e.1cf5a7a.2604780e@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: A forgotton fusion inventor. Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 00:00:39 -0700 Here is some one who nearly made fusion possible. but got black balled by the scientific community. He make have a few ideas that still could apply to space fusion. http://www.songs.com/philo/fusion/index.html -- The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1713" "Saturday" "18" "March" "2000" "09:18:46" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "37" "RE: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1713 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA12293 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 07:42:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA12286 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 07:42:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p474.gnt.com [204.49.91.90]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA24540 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 09:41:57 -0600 Message-ID: <000001bf90f0$6c5edbd0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <14547.3184.976523.471111@localhost.efn.org> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 09:18:46 -0600 > Ben Franchuk writes: > > Finding the equation just recently Power (in watts) = ISP > ( impulse ) > > * 9.8 ( g ) * N ( newtons of thrust ) / 2. Any propulsion system > > would require MAMMOTH amounts of power. Heat dissipation > is the limiting > > factor here. > > As has been pointed out before, fuel is the real limiting factor. > Fusion power is barely capable of driving a ship to > relativistic speeds > with large, but not completely untenable, fuel-to-payload ratios. > Talking about building an interstellar spacecraft that uses fission > power is just plain ludicrous. There isn't enough fissible > material in > the solar system to power a spacecraft at 1 g acceleration for a whole > year. Steve is correct, several fission rocket engines have been built and tested (NERVA). They had nowhere near enough power for interstellar applications, but would work reasonably well interplanetary. The major reason they were dropped was that nobody wanted NASA using nuclear powered engines to launch craft into orbit, which was the purpose of the program at the time. Even though this is a (mostly) mature technology, it wouldn't be worth the effort to build such an engine now when we have several different plasma engines testing and at least one fusion design in the early experimental phase. All of these designs offer between 2 and 50 times the power of any fission engine ever built. Not even the fusion design as currently envisioned is capable of maintaining 1G constant acceleration all the way to Mars, much less anywhere farther away. I suppose if you drastically reduced the payload fraction, it could be done, but the amount of fuel consumed would probably not make it practical. Lee From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3492" "Saturday" "18" "March" "2000" "09:38:13" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "87" "RE: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "[Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3492 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA12258 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 07:42:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA12248 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 07:42:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p474.gnt.com [204.49.91.90]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA24546; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 09:42:00 -0600 Message-ID: <000101bf90f0$6e2d5a40$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <4c.2fa45f2.26046684@aol.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: Subject: RE: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 09:38:13 -0600 > >Rotary Rocket and LightCraft are the only ones that look to > be ready in > >the near future.+3 years. The other SSTO's are still several > years away. > > Actually neiather are doing that well. Space Access is doing > pretty well, > and they completed the ground tests of the most critical > parts. Namely the > ejector ramjets. They alone are a dramatic improvement over > Rotary or most > of the other designs. Who's lightcraft by the way? Rotary has yet to go any further in its testing program than DCX did. I still think DCX was the better way to go. Lightcraft has flown nothing but MODELS. Lightcraft's biggest problem is building sufficiently powerful ground lasers for a full size craft - none currently exist. BTW, any laser capable of lifting a full size cargo or passenger carrying lightcraft to orbit makes one hell of an ABM weapon system and will likely run into unexpected political problems as well.... > >> >I use a fusion reactor -- it is called the sun -- to make the > >> >anti-matter. > >> > >> To expensive, and complex. > >> > > > >Anti-matter is real now...Boom !!! was real. > >Fusion is not. > > We've done fusion, and can do so in larger quantity then antimater. Sun does not make antimatter, it makes antiparticles which are not harvestable. If you mean that you will use solar power to run a particle accelerator whose sole purpose is to manufacture antimatter, that is a different story. It is possible but difficult, expensive and SLOW. Nevertheless, it is probably the only way we are going to get any significant amount of antimatter. Fusion as a propulsion is easier to do than fusion as power. The containment parameters are very different and easier to achieve and the power cycle requirements don't require continuous, sustained fusion. The physics for antimatter propulsion are understood. That's it end of story. There are no designs, no experiments and no research being done at this time. > >> >Anti-matter catalyzed fusion will probability come before straight > >> >fusion, Catalyzed fusion has been demonstrated in the laboratory using antimatter as the catalyst. Muon catalyzed fusion is also being worked on, but mostly as a power source not propulsion. > >> Why? Regular fusion research (ignoring the DOE work) has > shown excelent > >> results. Its generally assumed we could get fusin in a > decades or two > >if we > >> tried. Space is thought to be a "Market" that could support it. Space has almost no need for fusion power expect for spacecraft propulsion. Solar power is easier, freely available and far cheaper. > Since no one has any pressing reason to build on, no one ever > really started the 10 year program. Bingo! As long as fossil fuel is cheap, you can forget fusion.... > >Funding is a big problem as investors always think of the > next 6 months > >rather than the next 6 years. > > Interstellar exploration won't interest any investors. It > couldn't return > anything marketable. This has always been a big problem with interstellar exploration. Other than scientific knowledge of limited marketable value, there is precious little reason to go. The only thing that I can even remotely come up with is some sort of Diaspora where some disaffected group of society decide to leave in mass and somehow fund it by pooling their resources. There won't be any investment return, just a new chance at life the way they want to live it. Science fiction paints a very unrealistic picture I'm afraid. Lee From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["928" "Saturday" "18" "March" "2000" "09:03:54" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "23" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "[Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 928 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA14277 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 08:00:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA14272 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 08:00:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin34.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.34]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA23732; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 08:54:56 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38D3A8EA.CC3892CD@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000101bf90f0$6e2d5a40$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: KellySt@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 09:03:54 -0700 > > Interstellar exploration won't interest any investors. It > > couldn't return > > anything marketable. > > This has always been a big problem with interstellar exploration. Other than > scientific knowledge of limited marketable value, there is precious little > reason to go. The only thing that I can even remotely come up with is some > sort of Diaspora where some disaffected group of society decide to leave in > mass and somehow fund it by pooling their resources. There won't be any > investment return, just a new chance at life the way they want to live it. > Science fiction paints a very unrealistic picture I'm afraid. > That is true, in the past a group of people could walk to a new location. Very cheap travel. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4943" "Saturday" "18" "March" "2000" "17:39:18" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "102" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4943 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA19684 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 14:39:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19679 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 14:39:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id s.4a.2f1c613 (3975); Sat, 18 Mar 2000 17:39:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4a.2f1c613.26055f96@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 31 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stevev@efn.org CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 17:39:18 EST In a message dated 3/17/00 10:55:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, stevev@efn.org writes: > STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > > As with known bomb and reactor fusion and fusion reactions, my plasma > from > > Americium 241 above critical mass contain mostly fusion compared to > fission > > reactions. The liquid propellant (water) exposed to the plasma > temperatures > > has mainly fission (hydrogen) with some fusion products. The higher the > > plasma temperature the smaller the fission parts. > > Elements heavier than iron will only fuse if you put energy into the > reaction. You aren't going to get fusion products out of Americium, > only fission products. You seem to be deeply confused about the basics > of nuclear fission and fusion. Nonsense, the confusion is yours. Einstein invented the atomic bomb and that fact blows your nonsense theories you were taught out of the water. quoting (I bolded the original text for emphasis) Albert Einstein from the link Ein stein quote---- Some people called me amazing. I was born in Germany in the year 1879. I went to the United States in the 1930s. I developed the important theories of relativity. The famous equation E=MC^2 led to the development of nuclear fission and eventually the atomic bomb. My reason for inventing the atomic bomb, was because the received evidence that Germany (my native country) was planning to build an atomic bomb. They were going to use it against the United States. The atomic bomb was made in the U.S. and in 1945 the United States used the atomic bomb. They used it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While I was attending college Marcel Grossman, a classmate, said, "This Einstein will one day be a very great man." Marcel Grossman was right. End quote --------- > > > Even were my "fusion drive" very low efficiency aboard my 105 ton craft > only > > 1/2 ton of americium 241 need to be converted to the energy required to > > accelerate the 100 tons of propellant causing the 5 ton payload to > approach > > light speed relativistically to earth observer and with time dilation > effects > > greater than light speed wrt to the ship for just such an acceleration. > > Even if you were to indulge in your amusing habit of mixing Newtonian > and relativistic physics, you would find that accelerating a payload to > a high fraction of c requires a quantity of energy comparable to the > mass of the payload converted _completely_ to energy. Nonsense, You cannot ignore Newtonian physics and see only relativistic (observer effects) as important. Einstein's equations use the terms E and E' for Newtonian and relativistic energy respectively. The value is different and both are valid. It is obvious both observer (relativistic effect) and Newtonian physics aboard the spacecraft are calculated by SR equations and equally valid. The E' value you find required is observed from the earth. The value I require aboard my ship is E =MC^2. If you will stop mixing frames of reference for a minute and observer that to calculate the energy observed relativistically you have to use the relativistic mass M' in your calculation to prevent mixing of frames. The increased relativistic 1/2 ton mass approaches infinity as the velocity approaches light speed. This real difference in the masses and resulting energy is the factor you underestimate the velocity obtainable by my machine. > As a very rough > approximation fission converts about 1/1000 of the mass of the fission > fuel to energy, so 500 kg of fission fuel won't get you more than about > 0.5 kg of mass converted to energy, and correspondingly won't accelerate > even its own fission products to more than about 1/1000 c. It would > accelerate your 5 ton payload considerably less. That's probably good > enough for interplanetary velocities, but you're going to need a _lot_ > more fuel than that to achieve relativistic velocities. Nonsense, your wrong, poorly calculated as shown, but forgivable. Einstein claimed in 1955 he never said objects cannot exceed light speed and gave the reasons I give always. He said the misunderstanding began when a translator for his German SR theory was translated to English. The translator used his own misunderstanding and quoted the misinformation attributing his own thoughts as quoted as what Einstein said. Widely published in America, by the time he got over here and his English had greatly improved he made not attempt to correct (until 1955) the public misunderstanding. He focused instead on teaching correctly his student classes at Princeton and CalTech. Since then I have found no quote or work by any of his actual students or Einstein, claiming otherwise. It is time for you to put up or shut up and listen. Show me other wise. Respectfully. Tom Jackson > > From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["419" "Saturday" "18" "March" "2000" "18:10:47" "-0800" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "15" "Re: starship-design: A forgotton fusion inventor." "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: A forgotton fusion inventor." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 419 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA27323 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 18:10:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from jason03.u.washington.edu (root@jason03.u.washington.edu [140.142.77.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA27317 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 18:10:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from dante16.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante16.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.85]) by jason03.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW00.01) with ESMTP id SAA40946; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 18:10:48 -0800 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante16.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id SAA76960; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 18:10:47 -0800 In-Reply-To: <38D32997.B202D058@jetnet.ab.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" From: "N. Lindberg" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Ben Franchuk cc: STAR1SHIP@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: A forgotton fusion inventor. Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 18:10:47 -0800 (PST) Interesting stuff. Thanks for posting this. Nels On Sat, 18 Mar 2000, Ben Franchuk wrote: > Here is some one who nearly made fusion possible. but got black > balled by the scientific community. He make have a few ideas that > still could apply to space fusion. > > http://www.songs.com/philo/fusion/index.html > > -- The Lagging edge of technology: > http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html > From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5378" "Sunday" "19" "March" "2000" "07:14:20" "-0500" "John Bean" "johnbean@ebard.com" nil "100" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5378 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA18387 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 04:16:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.valueweb.net (root@smtp.valueweb.net [207.36.123.48]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA18364 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 04:16:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from client-151-198-146-10.bellatlantic.net ([151.198.146.10]:2568 "EHLO [151.198.146.10]") by smtp.valueweb.net with ESMTP id ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 07:14:20 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: jb01@pop.ebard.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <38D07A34.5998ED30@jetnet.ab.ca> References: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: John Bean From: John Bean Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 07:14:20 -0500 Ben Franchuk wrote: > >I disagree -- you have to carry a boot strap able system. > >All that stuff could fit in a large space craft the catch is it is not >economic >to have small systems and you may have to reduce operating perimeters. > >Take solid state logic... A portable chip processing plant could >be table top size, but may have to use 2 inch wafers, be limited to 64kb >x 1 >dynamic ram,16 bit processors ,or smaller and only produce 256 chips a >day. > I don't know if I agree with the make-everything-myself idea when it comes to really complicated processes that are really expensive such as chip making. At some point you need to repair/replace the "table top wafer fab" and the technology to do that would have to be carried. Then that technology needs to be repaired so you need the technology to do that. This goes on forever with each iteration adding weight, complexity and cost. Also making chips is not as simple as a wafer lab according to the guys who are making custom chips for me. The process is big by nature, requires lots of energy, lots of chemicals and consumables, very skilled people and ultra-high tech ultra expensive equipment. These guys snicker or drool whenever you talk about a small or inexpensive or easy prototype machine like you are discussing. Even if you could create this machine and have it weigh 100 pounds with 100 pounds of support stuff, excluding consumables, and 100 pounds of spare parts and equipment it becomes really heavy and would cost millions of dollars. I don't know how to figure out the weight of the person to operate this or the supplies he needs. This also ignores the toxicity of some of the processes. A better suggestion may be to design a "generic" logic module using modern technology. I'm not suggesting a few gates on a board as in the 80s I am suggesting a 32 Bit ARM processor, a DSP, 160k of program flash, 8Mbits of data flash, 12k of RAM, a USB port, an IRDA port, some A/D channels, some D/A channels, somer general purpose IO pins. This could be built on a 2x3 board that uses very low current (50ma with both CPU and DSP cooking at 22/80 mips) at 3.0 volts using available (off the shelf) technology for $20 a board in medium volumes at about 2 oz a board. In place of your 300 lbs of machine you could carry 2400 spares for $48000. Considering a desk-top fab will probably cost Millions, which excludes the packaging and testing equipment also required. The real difference is that you have to get used to the concept that in some things, such as modern electronics, you are often better off to throw a bunch of parts at a simple task than to make something custom. If you need to interface a full keyboard use one of these boards and also use one to interface to a single switch. The idea is to have so many of them that it just doesn't matter. If the initial design used this approach there would be thousands of these boards in a starship spread through critical (life-support) and non-crital (personal entertainment) systems. Take some multiplier of these as spares and you would be covered for many decades. Since many of the boards will be used for different types of tasks a particular failure on one part of the board would not prevent the board from being used in another location. For instance if an AD failed switch that board to some task that doesn't use the ADs and take the one from the task that didn't use the AD. This provides some redundancy without even reaching into the spares. This approach can be applied to other technology issues also. For instance only use two kinds of displays, a big one and a small one, and make sure the big one can do the job of the small one. Then carry spares, mostly of the big ones. Another way to extend the mission duration is to send supply ships ahead, or send them faster from behind with some replacement stuff. Since "stuff" doesn't need gravity or environmental controls or oxygen or food or water it can be moved much faster and much cheaper than we can move people. Although re-supply may be distasteful to "pure" starship travel the reallity is that even here on earth it was, and is, considered normal. Aircraft carriers and submarines and space stations do it, the only difference is distance. Considering FTL isn't going to happen soon, if ever, it is probably safe to assume that we would go pretty slow in a colony ship. If a supply ship can go 1.5 times faster at 8 months we send one with the first resupply reaching us at the 1 year point. Assuming engines will keep getting better perhaps the next supply ship is launched at 18 months and reaches us in 2 years. Radio will still be effective so we can provide them with a shopping list even if it is taking weeks or months for it to reach earth. Personally I don't think we will be going to reach the stars soon. However, I think starting to travel is critical to our survival just like setting out in doughouts was to most early sea fareing nations. I think that our travelers, now in space for 15 years, will be stuned when some kid pulls up in his dads Mach5 with his FTL Quantum drive with the Window's logo on it and says "haven't you heard, Bill Gates bought NASA, now everyone has an Intel FTL drive in their family car. Other than having to turn it back on every hour and the occasional warping into a star it works great" From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6488" "Sunday" "19" "March" "2000" "09:22:45" "EST" "Stravonski@aol.com" "Stravonski@aol.com" nil "119" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6488 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA01440 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 06:23:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA01433 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 06:23:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from Stravonski@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id i.d3.2bb5042 (1813); Sun, 19 Mar 2000 09:22:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 67 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Stravonski@aol.com From: Stravonski@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: johnbean@ebard.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, KellySt@aol.com Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 09:22:45 EST In a message dated 03/19/00 05:16:58 Mountain Standard Time, johnbean@ebard.com writes: << Subj: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: 03/19/00 05:16:58 Mountain Standard Time From: johnbean@ebard.com (John Bean) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Reply-to: johnbean@ebard.com (John Bean) To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Ben Franchuk wrote: > >I disagree -- you have to carry a boot strap able system. > >All that stuff could fit in a large space craft the catch is it is not >economic >to have small systems and you may have to reduce operating perimeters. > >Take solid state logic... A portable chip processing plant could >be table top size, but may have to use 2 inch wafers, be limited to 64kb >x 1 >dynamic ram,16 bit processors ,or smaller and only produce 256 chips a >day. > I don't know if I agree with the make-everything-myself idea when it comes to really complicated processes that are really expensive such as chip making. At some point you need to repair/replace the "table top wafer fab" and the technology to do that would have to be carried. Then that technology needs to be repaired so you need the technology to do that. This goes on forever with each iteration adding weight, complexity and cost. Also making chips is not as simple as a wafer lab according to the guys who are making custom chips for me. The process is big by nature, requires lots of energy, lots of chemicals and consumables, very skilled people and ultra-high tech ultra expensive equipment. These guys snicker or drool whenever you talk about a small or inexpensive or easy prototype machine like you are discussing. Even if you could create this machine and have it weigh 100 pounds with 100 pounds of support stuff, excluding consumables, and 100 pounds of spare parts and equipment it becomes really heavy and would cost millions of dollars. I don't know how to figure out the weight of the person to operate this or the supplies he needs. This also ignores the toxicity of some of the processes. A better suggestion may be to design a "generic" logic module using modern technology. I'm not suggesting a few gates on a board as in the 80s I am suggesting a 32 Bit ARM processor, a DSP, 160k of program flash, 8Mbits of data flash, 12k of RAM, a USB port, an IRDA port, some A/D channels, some D/A channels, somer general purpose IO pins. This could be built on a 2x3 board that uses very low current (50ma with both CPU and DSP cooking at 22/80 mips) at 3.0 volts using available (off the shelf) technology for $20 a board in medium volumes at about 2 oz a board. In place of your 300 lbs of machine you could carry 2400 spares for $48000. Considering a desk-top fab will probably cost Millions, which excludes the packaging and testing equipment also required. The real difference is that you have to get used to the concept that in some things, such as modern electronics, you are often better off to throw a bunch of parts at a simple task than to make something custom. If you need to interface a full keyboard use one of these boards and also use one to interface to a single switch. The idea is to have so many of them that it just doesn't matter. If the initial design used this approach there would be thousands of these boards in a starship spread through critical (life-support) and non-crital (personal entertainment) systems. Take some multiplier of these as spares and you would be covered for many decades. Since many of the boards will be used for different types of tasks a particular failure on one part of the board would not prevent the board from being used in another location. For instance if an AD failed switch that board to some task that doesn't use the ADs and take the one from the task that didn't use the AD. This provides some redundancy without even reaching into the spares. This approach can be applied to other technology issues also. For instance only use two kinds of displays, a big one and a small one, and make sure the big one can do the job of the small one. Then carry spares, mostly of the big ones. Another way to extend the mission duration is to send supply ships ahead, or send them faster from behind with some replacement stuff. Since "stuff" doesn't need gravity or environmental controls or oxygen or food or water it can be moved much faster and much cheaper than we can move people. Although re-supply may be distasteful to "pure" starship travel the reallity is that even here on earth it was, and is, considered normal. Aircraft carriers and submarines and space stations do it, the only difference is distance. Considering FTL isn't going to happen soon, if ever, it is probably safe to assume that we would go pretty slow in a colony ship. If a supply ship can go 1.5 times faster at 8 months we send one with the first resupply reaching us at the 1 year point. Assuming engines will keep getting better perhaps the next supply ship is launched at 18 months and reaches us in 2 years. Radio will still be effective so we can provide them with a shopping list even if it is taking weeks or months for it to reach earth. Personally I don't think we will be going to reach the stars soon. However, I think starting to travel is critical to our survival just like setting out in doughouts was to most early sea fareing nations. I think that our travelers, now in space for 15 years, will be stuned when some kid pulls up in his dads Mach5 with his FTL Quantum drive with the Window's logo on it and says "haven't you heard, Bill Gates bought NASA, now everyone has an Intel FTL drive in their family car. Other than having to turn it back on every hour and the occasional warping into a star it works great" >> Has anyone thought about the development in organic computer technology that is being worked in labs? Computer circuits that are self repairing. Kind of a combination between neural nets and processors. They've already put a tiny chip into a cell, with the terribly slow rate that space advancements are doing (at least the manned ones), this technology could be up and running before we ever leave for the nearest star. That way, you don't have to make chips with equipment and such, you can grow them. They would also presumably last longer than silicon as well as grow and work better. Just a thought. Mike Pfeifer From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7636" "Sunday" "19" "March" "2000" "08:39:40" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "167" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7636 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA09685 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 07:36:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA09679 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 07:36:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin45.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.45]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA14478 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 08:30:30 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38D4F4BC.CA235F33@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 08:39:40 -0700 John Bean wrote: > I don't know if I agree with the make-everything-myself idea when it comes > to really complicated processes that are really expensive such as chip > making. At some point you need to repair/replace the "table top wafer fab" > and the technology to do that would have to be carried. Then that > technology needs to be repaired so you need the technology to do that. This > goes on forever with each iteration adding weight, complexity and cost. > That is only true, with a evolving system. The Critical components would be fixed in design. Barring the latest PC clone I can see only 50 - 60 different kinds of semi-conductor components. A air circulating fan does not need a 1 GHz 64 bit cpu to control it. > > Also making chips is not as simple as a wafer lab according to the guys who > are making custom chips for me. The process is big by nature, requires lots > of energy, lots of chemicals and consumables, very skilled people and > ultra-high tech ultra expensive equipment. These guys snicker or drool > whenever you talk about a small or inexpensive or easy prototype machine > like you are discussing. > That is true, but semi-custom chips require less processing, at say a 30% loss in speed and processor size. High density programmable logic, providing that they be used wisely and you don't have problems with bit rot in the chips that could really cut down the number of spares needed. Right now I am working with a semi-custom design package, ( free on linux ) with rather slow logic ( 1 ns gate + 1 ns/pf ) to design the ttl logic processor I always wanted to build but never could make up my mind on the instruction set. Since I started programing computers on the PDP-8, a classic micro-controler with 4 k-words of core memory, I have this dislike for bloated code. Anybody need a 24 bit processor chip ... coming real soon. I am sure that even the old 8 could handle control of the fusion reactor or plasma drive.The PDP-8S ( slow ) was a neat all transistor ( 1001 of the suckers) computer. You only need computing power for graphics,games and multi-media. People stuff, not ship running stuff. > > Even if you could create this machine and have it weigh 100 pounds with 100 > pounds of support stuff, excluding consumables, and 100 pounds of spare > parts and equipment it becomes really heavy and would cost millions of > dollars. I don't know how to figure out the weight of the person to operate > this or the supplies he needs. This also ignores the toxicity of some of > the processes. Very heavy!? you just said 300 lbs. Most likely 3,000 lbs and the same for support stuff. Note this would be at the trailing edge of technology as most of the design stuff would be simple devices. > > A better suggestion may be to design a "generic" logic module using modern > technology. I'm not suggesting a few gates on a board as in the 80s I am > suggesting a 32 Bit ARM processor, a DSP, 160k of program flash, 8Mbits of > data flash, 12k of RAM, a USB port, an IRDA port, some A/D channels, some > D/A channels, somer general purpose IO pins. This could be built on a 2x3 > board that uses very low current (50ma with both CPU and DSP cooking at > 22/80 mips) at 3.0 volts using available (off the shelf) technology for $20 > a board in medium volumes at about 2 oz a board. > YUCK !!! Eprom,Dynamic ram,Flash,Cmos all have a limited life span (10 years),zapped easily by cosmic radiation and just is over kill for many things.. Low density bipolar fuse based logic looks to be more rugged in a space application for critical things. > > In place of your 300 lbs of machine you could carry 2400 spares for $48000. > Considering a desk-top fab will probably cost Millions, which excludes the > packaging and testing equipment also required. > Funny last time I looked at star-ship prices that was in the travelers role-playing game and they where not cheap. For a fleet of 12 ships custom design was only 10%. I place this as a .1% cost modification. > > The real difference is that you have to get used to the concept that in > some things, such as modern electronics, you are often better off to throw > a bunch of parts at a simple task than to make something custom. > Is not that the same thing, custom chips only are the bunch of parts all on one chip rather than a PC board. > > If you need to interface a full keyboard use one of these boards and also > use one to interface to a single switch. The idea is to have so many of > them that it just doesn't matter. If the initial design used this approach > there would be thousands of these boards in a starship spread through > critical (life-support) and non-crital (personal entertainment) systems. > Take some multiplier of these as spares and you would be covered for many > decades. > Take keyboards - I want a just a keyboard , not a key board with trackball, infrared remote and windows keys just to punch up the commands to "leave orbit" or "hyper speed 3.623". > > Since many of the boards will be used for different types of tasks a > particular failure on one part of the board would not prevent the board > from being used in another location. For instance if an AD failed switch > that board to some task that doesn't use the ADs and take the one from the > task that didn't use the AD. This provides some redundancy without even > reaching into the spares. > > This approach can be applied to other technology issues also. For instance > only use two kinds of displays, a big one and a small one, and make sure > the big one can do the job of the small one. Then carry spares, mostly of > the big ones. That is the best way to design it. > Another way to extend the mission duration is to send supply ships ahead, > or send them faster from behind with some replacement stuff. Since "stuff" > doesn't need gravity or environmental controls or oxygen or food or water > it can be moved much faster and much cheaper than we can move people. > Although re-supply may be distasteful to "pure" starship travel the > reallity is that even here on earth it was, and is, considered normal. > Aircraft carriers and submarines and space stations do it, the only > difference is distance. > Or move more at a slower speed, only "living" things need to be moved fast. > > Considering FTL isn't going to happen soon, if ever, it is probably safe to > assume that we would go pretty slow in a colony ship. If a supply ship can > go 1.5 times faster at 8 months we send one with the first resupply > reaching us at the 1 year point. Assuming engines will keep getting better > perhaps the next supply ship is launched at 18 months and reaches us in 2 > years. Radio will still be effective so we can provide them with a shopping > list even if it is taking weeks or months for it to reach earth. > > Personally I don't think we will be going to reach the stars soon. However, > I think starting to travel is critical to our survival just like setting > out in doughouts was to most early sea fareing nations. I think that our > travelers, now in space for 15 years, will be stuned when some kid pulls up > in his dads Mach5 with his FTL Quantum drive with the Window's logo on it > and says "haven't you heard, Bill Gates bought NASA, now everyone has an > Intel FTL drive in their family car. Other than having to turn it back on > every hour and the occasional warping into a star it works great" LOL -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["996" "Sunday" "19" "March" "2000" "08:47:30" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "23" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 996 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10870 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 07:44:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA10853 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 07:44:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin45.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.45]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA14831; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 08:38:18 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38D4F692.B467D287@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, KellySt@aol.com Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 08:47:30 -0700 > > Has anyone thought about the development in organic computer technology that > is being worked in labs? Computer circuits that are self repairing. Kind of > a combination between neural nets and processors. They've already put a tiny > chip into a cell, with the terribly slow rate that space advancements are > doing (at least the manned ones), this technology could be up and running > before we ever leave for the nearest star. That way, you don't have to make > chips with equipment and such, you can grow them. They would also presumably > last longer than silicon as well as grow and work better. Just a thought. I don't see that being useful directly, but who knows. My favorite new thing is the design of a all plastic transistor, plastic wires and plastic solder. > Mike Pfeifer -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4604" "Sunday" "19" "March" "2000" "10:27:25" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "98" "RE: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4604 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA16155 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 08:32:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA16150 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 08:32:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p435.gnt.com [204.49.91.51]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA04350; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:31:58 -0600 Message-ID: <001101bf91c0$93389310$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'John Bean'" , Subject: RE: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:27:25 -0600 John, Not to speak one way or the other on the make it yourself thing, but your suggestion: > A better suggestion may be to design a "generic" logic module > using modern > technology. I'm not suggesting a few gates on a board as in > the 80s I am > suggesting a 32 Bit ARM processor, a DSP, 160k of program > flash, 8Mbits of > data flash, 12k of RAM, a USB port, an IRDA port, some A/D > channels, some > D/A channels, somer general purpose IO pins. This could be > built on a 2x3 > board that uses very low current (50ma with both CPU and DSP > cooking at > 22/80 mips) at 3.0 volts using available (off the shelf) > technology for $20 > a board in medium volumes at about 2 oz a board. has quite a bit of merit. Programmable Gate Arrays are just now beginning to come back into their own and can rival even the latest Pentium processors in power. More so in that for a particular application, you can literally hard wire the code into the processor resulting in blindingly fast execution. Want to change the application? Just "reprogram" the gates, presto, a new dedicated processor. > > In place of your 300 lbs of machine you could carry 2400 > spares for $48000. > Considering a desk-top fab will probably cost Millions, which > excludes the > packaging and testing equipment also required. I think you should probably add a few zeroes to this figure, but it still makes more sense than a dedicated fab plant. > > The real difference is that you have to get used to the > concept that in > some things, such as modern electronics, you are often better > off to throw > a bunch of parts at a simple task than to make something custom. Kelly already discovered this with consumables. It turns out that weight wise it is easier and more economical to carry stores than to attempt to implement a completely self sustaining closed eco system for any trip less than about a hundred years. Most of us here are not trying to build a generation ship anyway, so the same reasoning applies. Design the ship to last for the length of the voyage plan on some repairs, use modular components wherever possible, and cross your fingers... > > Another way to extend the mission duration is to send supply > ships ahead, > or send them faster from behind with some replacement stuff. > Since "stuff" > doesn't need gravity or environmental controls or oxygen or > food or water > it can be moved much faster and much cheaper than we can move people. > Although re-supply may be distasteful to "pure" starship travel the > reallity is that even here on earth it was, and is, considered normal. > Aircraft carriers and submarines and space stations do it, the only > difference is distance. Practical idea in theory, and it may be the only way. However, logistically, it will not be anywhere as easy as you make it sound. I tend to prefer the first mission as a Pathfinder mission, specialized crew of around ten to twenty, LOTS of computer support, running fast and light. It would be sent to targets that had already been identified as special in some way, such as the presence of Oxygen in the spectrum of its planets. The Explorer mission would follow only after a Pathfinder reported back that there was a reason for more extensive exploration, such as a potentially habitable planet, or perhaps just to study life already there. This mission would actually be a small fleet consisting of the Explorer ship itself, and several freighters slaved to the Explorer. The freighters would carry spares, extra supplies, machinery, tools, and intrasystem craft including landers. The Explorer mission would consist of several hundred to several thousand people, enough to establish at least a permanent research presence, including establishing mining and manufacturing operations sufficient to support the mission and any follow on missions. The last mission would be the Caravan mission. This is the big one. The colonists would arrive in one or more very large ships, hopefully in some sort of cryo sleep to conserve mass, so that the trip would go faster with fewer support craft or resupplies. Tools, supplies and machinery needed by the colonists would already be there ahead of them, built by the automated factories put in place by the Explorer crew. I agree that FTL probably won't happen any time soon, and that isn't the purpose of this list anyway. I DO think we will be able to reach close to the speed of light with derivatives of today's technology within a hundred years. It is after all really nothing more than a brute force application of things we already know or suspect how to do. Lee From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["908" "Sunday" "19" "March" "2000" "09:32:15" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "25" "RE: starship-design: A forgotton fusion inventor." "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: A forgotton fusion inventor." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 908 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA16143 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 08:32:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA16137 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 08:32:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p435.gnt.com [204.49.91.51]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA04329; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:31:52 -0600 Message-ID: <000f01bf91c0$8ff61240$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'N. Lindberg'" , "'Ben Franchuk'" Cc: , Subject: RE: starship-design: A forgotton fusion inventor. Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 09:32:15 -0600 Ben, Farnsworth's Fusor bears a startling resemblance to the VASIMR engine. If anything, I would say it was probably more advanced. VASIMR uses a similar tube arrangement but the pump is an array of microwave emitters. It is still a vacuum tube in basic concept though. If the quoted power input figures are correct, Farnsworth's Fusor is vastly more efficient. It would be interesting to see someone build one, demonstrate to the world that it works and then LET ITT sue...it could be VERY embarrassing for ITT. Lee > On Sat, 18 Mar 2000, Ben Franchuk wrote: > > > Here is some one who nearly made fusion possible. but got black > > balled by the scientific community. He make have a few ideas that > > still could apply to space fusion. > > > > http://www.songs.com/philo/fusion/index.html > > > > -- The Lagging edge of technology: > > http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html > > > From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["852" "Sunday" "19" "March" "2000" "09:58:02" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: A forgotton fusion inventor." "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: A forgotton fusion inventor." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 852 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19751 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 08:54:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19746 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 08:54:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin45.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.45]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA17779; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 09:48:50 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38D5071A.3B4D08A0@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000f01bf91c0$8ff61240$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: STAR1SHIP@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: A forgotton fusion inventor. Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 09:58:02 -0700 "L. Parker" wrote: > Farnsworth's Fusor bears a startling resemblance to the VASIMR engine. If > anything, I would say it was probably more advanced. VASIMR uses a similar > tube arrangement but the pump is an array of microwave emitters. It is still > a vacuum tube in basic concept though. If the quoted power input figures are > correct, Farnsworth's Fusor is vastly more efficient. > > It would be interesting to see someone build one, demonstrate to the world > that it works and then LET ITT sue...it could be VERY embarrassing for ITT. > > Lee I don't see every one building one, but it can't be harder than say building a steam-locomtive in a machine shop? Too bad I am all thumbs in construction as that would be my next project. ( After I am done my cpu ). Having a quick look at the message board it looks like 3 fusors have been built. From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["12005" "Sunday" "19" "March" "2000" "12:36:34" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "275" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 12005 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA26494 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 09:37:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA26489 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 09:37:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.ee.2a9b7ee (3972); Sun, 19 Mar 2000 12:36:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 31 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 12:36:34 EST In a message dated 3/19/00 7:36:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: > John Bean wrote: > > > I don't know if I agree with the make-everything-myself idea when it comes > > to really complicated processes that are really expensive such as chip > > making. At some point you need to repair/replace the "table top wafer fab" > > and the technology to do that would have to be carried. Then that > > technology needs to be repaired so you need the technology to do that. > This > > goes on forever with each iteration adding weight, complexity and cost. > > > > That is only true, with a evolving system. The Critical components > would be fixed in design. Barring the latest PC clone I can see only > 50 - 60 different kinds of semi-conductor components. A air circulating > fan > does not need a 1 GHz 64 bit cpu to control it. > > > > > Also making chips is not as simple as a wafer lab according to the guys > who > > are making custom chips for me. The process is big by nature, requires > lots > > of energy, lots of chemicals and consumables, very skilled people and > > ultra-high tech ultra expensive equipment. These guys snicker or drool > > whenever you talk about a small or inexpensive or easy prototype machine > > like you are discussing. > > > > That is true, but semi-custom chips require less processing, at say a > 30% > loss in speed and processor size. High density programmable logic, > providing > that they be used wisely and you don't have problems with bit rot in the > chips > that could really cut down the number of spares needed. > > Right now I am working with a semi-custom design package, ( free on > linux ) > with rather slow logic ( 1 ns gate + 1 ns/pf ) to design the ttl logic > processor I always wanted to build but never could make up my mind on > the instruction set. Since I started programing computers on the PDP-8, > a classic micro-controler with 4 k-words of core memory, I have this > dislike > for bloated code. As my first PC was a Commadore 64, they were masters at minimum code writing. They were doing thing with games, multimedia (video toaster) that only recently bloated code on present humongous PCs are doing. It would seem that you need to focus on your instructional set and not chip technology to accomplish what you want, Basic computer architecture has remained the same with miniaturization (and the increased speed with it) being the main progress. That not done by hardware can usually be done by software. > Anybody need a 24 bit processor chip ... coming real > soon. I am sure that even the old 8 could handle control of the fusion > reactor or plasma drive.The PDP-8S ( slow ) was a neat all transistor > ( 1001 of the suckers) computer. > > You only need computing power for graphics,games > and multi-media. People stuff, not ship running stuff. True. I use analog computer processors for ship guidance. This inertial guidance system takes data from sensor input, processes it in real time and delivers the output analog data to the control servos. A robust method that eliminates the fragility of present slow miniaturized processor chip technology. > > Even if you could create this machine and have it weigh 100 pounds with > 100 > > pounds of support stuff, excluding consumables, and 100 pounds of spare > > parts and equipment it becomes really heavy and would cost millions of > > dollars. I don't know how to figure out the weight of the person to > operate > > this or the supplies he needs. This also ignores the toxicity of some of > > the processes. > > Very heavy!? you just said 300 lbs. Most likely 3,000 lbs and the same > for support stuff. Note this would be at the trailing edge of technology > as most of the design stuff would be simple devices. > > > > > A better suggestion may be to design a "generic" logic module using modern > > technology. I'm not suggesting a few gates on a board as in the 80s I am > > suggesting a 32 Bit ARM processor, a DSP, 160k of program flash, 8Mbits of > > data flash, 12k of RAM, a USB port, an IRDA port, some A/D channels, some > > D/A channels, somer general purpose IO pins. This could be built on a 2x3 > > board that uses very low current (50ma with both CPU and DSP cooking at > > 22/80 mips) at 3.0 volts using available (off the shelf) technology for $ > 20 > > a board in medium volumes at about 2 oz a board. > > > YUCK !!! > > Eprom,Dynamic ram,Flash,Cmos all have a limited life span (10 > years),zapped easily > by cosmic radiation and just is over kill for many things.. Low density > bipolar fuse based logic looks to be more rugged in a space application > for critical > things. SInce the first PC was made from one of the parrallel processor chips from a supercomputer and given a reduced operating instruction code,, I reasoned that the many XT PC's with a few AT's laying around could be hardwired back in parallel (with Novell hardware and Lan Assist software. I then wrote the expanded operating code to return the hardware to the super computer status. Massive failures (rare) in any or many of the parallel processors (100 in number) failed to bring the computer down. In a RAID type array each of 3 instruction sets can be compared and the majority bit by "majority" vote sent to the central processor for actual use. This and other techniques would allow such a space faring computer to obtain many bit destroying cosmic collisions without destroying the integrality of the data and its primary function. Example: Oxide memory storage disks can have many holes (from cosmic collisions) in coating and still work as the bad spots are mapped and the data written to and beyond the hole and retrieved in the same manner. Any storage device with the redundant data comparison instruction set can route and go around a faulty chip address in the parallel set allowing the data processing integrity. Wriiteable CD storage devices would be less susceptible to magnetic storms encountered and the same repairable redundancy technology be used. Since present hard drive technology available for retail have their heads flying in air of the oxide (or other surface) they are not useful and crash in the vacuum of space. That is a fixable problem with pressurization though hard to maintain with robotic probes. (again micro meteor collision) > > > > > In place of your 300 lbs of machine you could carry 2400 spares for $48000. > > > Considering a desk-top fab will probably cost Millions, which excludes the > > packaging and testing equipment also required. Only a few thousand if you use obsolete processors with a nifty instruction set. > > Funny last time I looked at star-ship prices that was in the travelers > role-playing game and they where not cheap. For a fleet of 12 ships > custom > design was only 10%. I place this as a .1% cost modification. > > > > > The real difference is that you have to get used to the concept that in > > some things, such as modern electronics, you are often better off to throw > > a bunch of parts at a simple task than to make something custom. > > > > Is not that the same thing, custom chips only are the bunch of parts > all on one chip rather than a PC board. > > > > > If you need to interface a full keyboard use one of these boards and also > > use one to interface to a single switch. The idea is to have so many of > > them that it just doesn't matter. If the initial design used this approach > > there would be thousands of these boards in a starship spread through > > critical (life-support) and non-crital (personal entertainment) systems. > > Take some multiplier of these as spares and you would be covered for many > > decades. > > > Take keyboards - I want a just a keyboard , not a key board with > trackball, infrared remote and windows keys just to punch up the > commands to "leave orbit" > or "hyper speed 3.623". Ok, but I will just use a joy stick and throttle sensors from my analog computer. As the human brain is one of the best and biggest analog computers around (especially mine ;=)), I will take 20 other brains from starship-design list or clone of mine with me for redundancy. :=) > > Since many of the boards will be used for different types of tasks a > > particular failure on one part of the board would not prevent the board > > from being used in another location. For instance if an AD failed switch > > that board to some task that doesn't use the ADs and take the one from the > > task that didn't use the AD. This provides some redundancy without even > > reaching into the spares. > > > > This approach can be applied to other technology issues also. For instance > > only use two kinds of displays, a big one and a small one, and make sure > > the big one can do the job of the small one. Then carry spares, mostly of > > the big ones. > > That is the best way to design it. Each of the twenty crew members will have three (one operating) PC's net worked together but each capable of operating independently to handle all ship computer needs. > > Another way to extend the mission duration is to send supply ships ahead, > > or send them faster from behind with some replacement stuff. Since "stuff" > > doesn't need gravity or environmental controls or oxygen or food or water > > it can be moved much faster and much cheaper than we can move people. > > Although re-supply may be distasteful to "pure" starship travel the > > reallity is that even here on earth it was, and is, considered normal. > > Aircraft carriers and submarines and space stations do it, the only > > difference is distance. Brilliant technique there to extend both range and journey there. First used by nomads crossing uncrossable deserts. Supply trips buried supplies further and further out so the trip could be made. Non manned supply ships are not limited by the constant 1 g acceleration required for human cargo and so can be accelerated to a constant 15 g before supply integrity fails. > > > Or move more at a slower speed, only "living" things need to be moved > fast. > > > > > Considering FTL isn't going to happen soon, if ever, it is probably safe > to > > assume that we would go pretty slow in a colony ship. Speak for yourself please :=) > If a supply ship can > > go 1.5 times faster at 8 months we send one with the first resupply > > reaching us at the 1 year point. Assuming engines will keep getting better > > perhaps the next supply ship is launched at 18 months and reaches us in 2 > > years. Radio will still be effective so we can provide them with a > shopping > > list even if it is taking weeks or months for it to reach earth. > > > > Personally I don't think we will be going to reach the stars soon. wrong. Hell I am already there. :=) > However, > > > I think starting to travel is critical to our survival just like setting > > out in doughouts was to most early sea fareing nations. Considering the frailty of space ship earth and the MAD atomic policy such a journey would seem most necessary to mankind's survival. Best Regards, Tom > I think that our > > travelers, now in space for 15 years, will be stuned when some kid pulls > up > > in his dads Mach5 with his FTL Quantum drive with the Window's logo on it > > and says "haven't you heard, Bill Gates bought NASA, now everyone has an > > Intel FTL drive in their family car. Other than having to turn it back on > > every hour and the occasional warping into a star it works great" > > LOL Ditto Plasma Rocket Engine > -- > "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... > We borrow it from our children." > The Lagging edge of technology: > http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html > > From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2680" "Sunday" "19" "March" "2000" "12:54:54" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "88" "Re: starship-design: A forgotton fusion inventor." "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: A forgotton fusion inventor." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2680 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29067 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 09:56:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA29057 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 09:56:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.11.1efae7e (3972); Sun, 19 Mar 2000 12:54:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <11.1efae7e.26066e6e@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 31 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: A forgotton fusion inventor. Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 12:54:54 EST In a message dated 3/19/00 8:55:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: snip Hi Ben + list, I came across this amusing site on the difficulties if the builders of the atomic bomb used current chat room technolgy. It demonstrates the the difficulty of building a working diagram of a starship from a e-mail chat room list that I thought you might enjoy reading. Tom partial quote. ---- I'm not entirely convinced that the members of the Manhattan Project would have made any great strides by utilizing the current level of today's chatroom technology. No, nay, on the contrary. Call me a cynic, but I have a niggling hunch that it might have gone something like this: (NEILS BOHR enters room) Hello? (BADBOY) M/F? (NEILS BOHR) Huh?...Who are you, and what are you doing in here? (BADBOY) Well, that all depends on what you're looking for, babe. (NEILS BOHR) I'm looking for Joseph Carter, Enrico Fermi, Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer. And don't call me babe. (BADBOY) Kewl! So what's one more then, eh? I don't mind sloppy sixths. Got a pic, babe? (NEILS BOHR) A pic? ... Listen, get out if this room before I'm forced to contact security. The contents of this room are a matter of National Security and unless you have authorization, I suggest that you leave immediately! (SEXYGIRL enters room) HI EVERYBODY!!!!!! (BADBOY) Hellooooo Sexygirl!!! Wassup??? (SEXYGIRL) HI BADBOY & KNEELERS!!!! HUGGERS!!!! (NEILS BOHR) Sonofabitch! Who the hell are you people and how did you get in here? And for your information, the name is Neils, not Kneelers! (SEXYGIRL) What-everrr! (ROBERT OPPENHEIMER enters room) What the hell is going on in here, Neils? Have you been drinking the Heavy Water again? Who are these people? (BADBOY) Hey Rob, sup dude? (SEXYGIRL) HI ROBERS!! HUGGERS!!! (NEILS BOHR) Robert, I have no idea who these people are, but I suggest that you notify security and have them removed! And no - I've been Heavy Water clean since february. (ROBERT OPPENHEIMER) Neils, I'm having doubts concerning your paper on chain reactions. I'd like to go over it with you as soon I'm finished notifying security. (SEXYGIRL) WHAT'S A CHAIN REACTION? HUGGERS!!!! (NEILS BOHR) Robert, I have a copy right here, and hopefully we can work out the bugs. BADBOY: For your information, I'm a man. SEXYGIRL, A chain reaction refers to a process in which neutrons are released in fission to produce an additional fission in at least one further nucleus. ---- end quote more at http://www.schmuck.com/ian8.html SCHMUCK.COM Tom From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4313" "Sunday" "19" "March" "2000" "11:07:05" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "95" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4313 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA00878 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:03:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA00873 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:03:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin45.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.45]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA20593 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:57:53 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38D51749.93770B99@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <001101bf91c0$93389310$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 11:07:05 -0700 "L. Parker" wrote: > has quite a bit of merit. Programmable Gate Arrays are just now beginning to > come back into their own and can rival even the latest Pentium processors in > power. More so in that for a particular application, you can literally hard > wire the code into the processor resulting in blindingly fast execution. > Want to change the application? Just "reprogram" the gates, presto, a new > dedicated processor. > Also in price too, looking at the larger gate arrays they $400 us and up. The software to program them is a arm and leg too. > > I think you should probably add a few zeroes to this figure, but it still > makes more sense than a dedicated fab plant. > Yep the latest machines cost several billion $. If one where to limit to about 1983's technogy - 64k dynamic ram 68000,286 and 2 inch waffers you could make something for a lot less.( This is the my personal goal). Thinking more on this, manufaturing of all kinds will have to be done at some point - machine shop - semi-conductors. While not needed on the first few trips,keeping a lower standard in design will make less of a problem later. > > > > The real difference is that you have to get used to the > > concept that in > > some things, such as modern electronics, you are often better > > off to throw > > a bunch of parts at a simple task than to make something custom. > > Kelly already discovered this with consumables. It turns out that weight > wise it is easier and more economical to carry stores than to attempt to > implement a completely self sustaining closed eco system for any trip less > than about a hundred years. Most of us here are not trying to build a > generation ship anyway, so the same reasoning applies. Design the ship to > last for the length of the voyage plan on some repairs, use modular > components wherever possible, and cross your fingers... > The key word is "completely self sustaining", a 90% self sustaining would be desirable with a 80% a realistic design. > Practical idea in theory, and it may be the only way. However, logistically, > it will not be anywhere as easy as you make it sound. I tend to prefer the > first mission as a Pathfinder mission, specialized crew of around ten to > twenty, LOTS of computer support, running fast and light. It would be sent > to targets that had already been identified as special in some way, such as > the presence of Oxygen in the spectrum of its planets. > This I think would be better scouted with un-manned probes. The pathfinder mission still would need few slower support freighters. > > The Explorer mission would follow only after a Pathfinder reported back that > there was a reason for more extensive exploration, such as a potentially > habitable planet, or perhaps just to study life already there. This mission > would actually be a small fleet consisting of the Explorer ship itself, and > several freighters slaved to the Explorer. The freighters would carry > spares, extra supplies, machinery, tools, and intrasystem craft including > landers. The Explorer mission would consist of several hundred to several > thousand people, enough to establish at least a permanent research presence, > including establishing mining and manufacturing operations sufficient to > support the mission and any follow on missions. > > The last mission would be the Caravan mission. This is the big one. The > colonists would arrive in one or more very large ships, hopefully in some > sort of cryo sleep to conserve mass, so that the trip would go faster with > fewer support craft or resupplies. Tools, supplies and machinery needed by > the colonists would already be there ahead of them, built by the automated > factories put in place by the Explorer crew. > > I agree that FTL probably won't happen any time soon, and that isn't the > purpose of this list anyway. I DO think we will be able to reach close to > the speed of light with derivatives of today's technology within a hundred > years. It is after all really nothing more than a brute force application of > things we already know or suspect how to do. > > Lee -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4516" "Sunday" "19" "March" "2000" "12:36:36" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "87" "starship-design: Plasma rocket engine makes space flight much faster - 10 Feb 2000" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: Plasma rocket engine makes space flight much faster - 10 Feb 2000" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4516 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05710 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:37:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05703 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:37:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p451.gnt.com [204.49.91.67]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id MAA19993 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 12:37:20 -0600 Message-ID: <001801bf91d2$16eca370$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: starship-design: Plasma rocket engine makes space flight much faster - 10 Feb 2000 Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 12:36:36 -0600 Step on it Plasma rocket engine makes space flight much faster Artist’s concept of the plasma rocket. The prototype is being developed by the Fusion Energy Division at the Oak Ridge Centers for Manufacturing Technology. It may not be warp speed, but a new rocket engine concept in design at the Oak Ridge Centers for Manufacturing Technology could make space flight a much faster business than it is already. That would be good news for astronauts facing long stretches away from home on interplanetary missions. ORCMT’s Radio Frequency (rf) and Microwave Technology Center at the Oak Ridge Centers for Manufacturing Technology is collaborating with NASA to develop a high-powered plasma rocket engine prototype, a concept NASA will consider for high-speed interplanetary propulsion. The system is being designed as proof-of-principle for the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket, or VASIMR. According to Stan Milora of ORNL’s Fusion Energy Division, where the ORCMT center is located, a gas with a low molecular weight, probably helium, will be ionized, heated with rf waves and expelled from the rocket engine. “You can provide thrust in two ways: with low velocity and high mass flow like a liquid-fueled rocket, which is very inefficient, or with a plasma, which expels the propellant at millions of degrees versus thousands,” Milora says. “This would be a rocket with much increased fuel economy—you could taker longer trips with higher payloads because less weight would be devoted to fuel.” The VASIMR’s plasma, which consists of helium ions and electrons, is generated by a helicon plasma injector and confined and shaped by high-temperature superconducting magnets. The plasma would be guided through a rocket chamber formed by a magnetic field and further heated by rf waves at ion cyclotron frequencies. “The helium can be heated to very high temperatures, which provides a directed, very high-velocity exhaust plume,” Milora says. “The magnetic field is like a hose. As the helium ions come down the hose, spinning at the cyclotron frequency, we jack ’em up further with the rf power tuned to that frequency.” What comes out of the rocket’s magnetic nozzle is 1 million degrees hot, at a velocity of 70,000 meters per second. The plasma rocket would use propellant in relatively small amounts compared with a conventional chemical rocket for the same mission. In a real mission, conventional rocket engines would be used for lift-off from Earth. Once in space, the craft would switch to the plasma engine and accelerate continuously instead of coasting to its destination after a short-duration, high-thrust “burn.” The first flight of the VASIMR could come as early as 2001. NASA is considering testing the technology on a dual-purpose mission called the Radiation and Technology Demonstration mission. In addition to its main technology demonstration objectives, the spacecraft will carry radiation-measuring instruments and will undertake a comprehensive survey of the Van Allen radiation belts. The VASIMR engine is being developed in a partnership with NASA’s Advanced Space Propulsion Laboratory as well as private industry and a number of U.S. universities. ORCMT has the main responsibility for VASIMR’s rf and superconducting magnet systems. ORNL’s Fusion Energy Division has been DOE’s lead rf laboratory for fusion energy applications for the past decade and is involved in R&D aimed at commercial applications of high-temperature superconductors. A successful design would give NASA tremendous leeway in extended missions because so much less spacecraft payload would be devoted to fuel. VASIMR would provide for a wide range of mission abort capabilities, an essential element for human flight. The higher speeds from continuous acceleration would also be important to crews on manned missions. ORNL health physicist and mathematician Troyce Jones maintains that long-duration space flights could have a very deleterious effect on crews subjected to loss of bone mass (and associated immune system effects) from m icrogravity, high radiation and even months of crummy food. Milora acknowledges that the prospects of faster speeds have been appealing to the NASA collaborators. “We’re working with an astronaut on this,” Milora says. “Getting there fast is certainly a driver.”—B.C. (reported by Bill Wilburn) "People do love to go to weird places for reasons we can't imagine -- mostly because they have too much money." - Freeman Dyson From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4214" "Sunday" "19" "March" "2000" "11:46:17" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "91" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4214 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06936 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:42:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06917 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:42:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin45.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.45]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA22718; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 11:37:05 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38D52079.85F8EECC@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 11:46:17 -0700 STAR1SHIP@aol.com wrote: > > As my first PC was a Commadore 64, they were masters at minimum code writing. > They were doing thing with games, multimedia (video toaster) that only > recently bloated code on present humongous PCs are doing. It would seem that > you need to focus on your instructional set and not chip technology to > accomplish what you want, Basic computer architecture has remained the same > with miniaturization (and the increased speed with it) being the main > progress. That not done by hardware can usually be done by software. > A Coco fan myself, but I have did some work with a vic-20 to run some VCR players for a comunity channel a lang time ago. > > True. I use analog computer processors for ship guidance. This inertial > guidance system takes data from sensor input, processes it in real time and > delivers the output analog data to the control servos. A robust method that > eliminates the fragility of present slow miniaturized processor chip > technology. > Providing speed is not a requiment, I like the idea of digital encoding of analog data to pulse width modulation. > Massive failures (rare) in any or many of the parallel processors (100 in > number) failed to bring the computer down. In a RAID type array each of 3 > instruction sets can be compared and the majority bit by "majority" vote sent > to the central processor for actual use. This and other techniques would > allow such a space faring computer to obtain many bit destroying cosmic > collisions without destroying the integrality of the data and its primary > function. The majority bit is good idea, but what if during a write to memory a glitch sets or clears other random cells in them memory array? Error correcting does nothing if you get a burst of errors. > Example: Oxide memory storage disks can have many holes (from cosmic > collisions) in coating and still work as the bad spots are mapped and the > data written to and beyond the hole and retrieved in the same manner. Any > storage device with the redundant data comparison instruction set can route > and go around a faulty chip address in the parallel set allowing the data > processing integrity. Wriiteable CD storage devices would be less susceptible > to magnetic storms encountered and the same repairable redundancy technology > be used. Since present hard drive technology available for retail have their > heads flying in air of the oxide (or other surface) they are not useful and > crash in the vacuum of space. That is a fixable problem with pressurization > though hard to maintain with robotic probes. (again micro meteor collision) > This looks like a quick fix needed with scotch tape... Really, check slashdot out for a writable tape storage system. You can add air for your hard drive to work, then seal the unit. A write once product might be just as useful if the computer processing is mostly control, rather than general computing. > > Ok, but I will just use a joy stick and throttle sensors from my analog > computer. As the human brain is one of the best and biggest analog computers > around (especially mine ;=)), I will take 20 other brains from > starship-design list or clone of mine with me for redundancy. :=) > That explains why everybody walks around with that glazed look in their eyes and the hole in the skull and "Yes Master" is all they can say. > Each of the twenty crew members will have three (one operating) PC's net > worked together but each capable of operating independently to handle all > ship computer needs. > Non manned supply ships are not > limited by the constant 1 g acceleration required for human cargo and so can > be accelerated to a constant 15 g before supply integrity fails. > 3 G's is the limit for many items,but most acceration would be .1g even with fusion do to the problems of generating more acceration. > Considering the frailty of space ship earth and the MAD atomic policy such a > journey would seem most necessary to mankind's survival. > True. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["587" "Sunday" "19" "March" "2000" "12:00:28" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "17" "Re: starship-design: A forgotton fusion inventor." "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: A forgotton fusion inventor." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 587 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA09128 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:56:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09121 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:56:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin45.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.45]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23988; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 11:51:16 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38D523CC.3C24ECA4@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <11.1efae7e.26066e6e@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: A forgotton fusion inventor. Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 12:00:28 -0700 STAR1SHIP@aol.com wrote: > Hi Ben + list, I came across this amusing site on the difficulties if the builders of the atomic bomb used current chat room technology. Well the Bomb would not be invented, ( A good thing )and those guys Neils Bohr,Joseph Carter, Enrico Fermi, Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer would have got laid more often (A good thing for them.) -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1473" "Sunday" "19" "March" "2000" "13:46:47" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "32" "Re: starship-design: Plasma rocket engine makes space flight much faster - 10 Feb 2000" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: Plasma rocket engine makes space flight much faster - 10 Feb 2000" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1473 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA27020 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 12:43:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA27008 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 12:43:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin54.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.54]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA29251; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 13:37:34 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38D53CB7.B7E2C5A0@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <001801bf91d2$16eca370$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Plasma rocket engine makes space flight much faster - 10 Feb 2000 Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 13:46:47 -0700 "L. Parker" wrote: > It may not be warp speed, but a new rocket engine concept in design at the > Oak Ridge Centers for Manufacturing Technology could make space flight a > much faster business than it is already. That would be good news for > astronauts facing long stretches away from home on interplanetary missions. > > ORCMT?s Radio Frequency (rf) and Microwave Technology Center at the Oak > Ridge Centers for Manufacturing Technology is collaborating with NASA to > develop a high-powered plasma rocket engine prototype, a concept NASA will > consider for high-speed interplanetary propulsion. The system is being > designed as proof-of-principle for the Variable Specific Impulse > Magnetoplasma Rocket, or VASIMR. > According to Stan Milora of ORNL?s Fusion Energy Division, where the ORCMT > center is located, a gas with a low molecular weight, probably helium, will > be ionized, heated with rf waves and expelled from the rocket engine. Sounds good but for 2 things. 1) Still no source power for said engine. 2) Is not helium going to be the first chemical element that we run out of around 2010? > > "People do love to go to weird places for reasons we can't imagine -- mostly > because they have too much money." > - Freeman Dyson -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4990" "Sunday" "19" "March" "2000" "17:46:13" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "116" "Re: starship-design: Plasma rocket engine makes space flight much faster - 1..." "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: Plasma rocket engine makes space flight much faster - 1..." nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4990 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA22107 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 14:47:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22100 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 14:47:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.54.22a0228 (3965); Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:46:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <54.22a0228.2606b2b5@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 31 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Plasma rocket engine makes space flight much faster - 1... Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:46:13 EST In a message dated 3/19/00 12:43:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: > "L. Parker" wrote: > > It may not be warp speed, but a new rocket engine concept in design at the > > Oak Ridge Centers for Manufacturing Technology could make space flight a > > much faster business than it is already. That would be good news for > > astronauts facing long stretches away from home on interplanetary missions. > > > > > ORCMT?s Radio Frequency (rf) and Microwave Technology Center at the Oak > > Ridge Centers for Manufacturing Technology is collaborating with NASA to > > develop a high-powered plasma rocket engine prototype, a concept NASA will > > consider for high-speed interplanetary propulsion. The system is being > > designed as proof-of-principle for the Variable Specific Impulse > > Magnetoplasma Rocket, or VASIMR. > > According to Stan Milora of ORNL?s Fusion Energy Division, where the ORCMT > > center is located, a gas with a low molecular weight, probably helium, > will > > be ionized, heated with rf waves and expelled from the rocket engine. L. Parker Glad to find you backed of your previous enthusiastic claim such a device had been test fired. > Sounds good but for 2 things. > 1) Still no source power for said engine. > 2) Is not helium going to be the first chemical element that we run out > of > around 2010? Only two? I see four proplems with their pricnciples stated that my plasma rocket engine has overcome for interstellar flight. 1.> a gas with a low molecular weight, Low molecular weight means low exhaust mass giving low payload velocity from the equation (mass time velocity) of payload= (mass times velocity) of exhaust. My plasma rocket engine uses water for propellant with higher molecular mass and therefore velocity. 2. >probably helium, > will be ionized, Ionizing gas for a plasma leaves positive and negative atom parts with no way of ridding the craft of the electrons. An electric charge builds up and when the craft lands the resulting lightning discharge from different electric potentials will in all probability abort (crash and burn) the landing and prevent relaunch. My design expels all positive, negative and neutral atom parts out the exhaust port. In addition electrolysis can convert part of the propellant to payload oxygen requirements and the propellant can be used in part to supply payload with water requirements. Waste water can be returned to the propellant tanks be ejected as exhaust. 3. >heated with rf waves and expelled from the rocket engine. What ever supplies the heat source works at a very low efficiency design of no more than 20% including atomic electric producing reactors so the added mass and waste products (sound, heat waste products) give many velocity limiting disposable problems. My design overcomes the problem by using a plasma created by Americium above critical mass whose heat "directly" expands and fissions and ejects the liquid propellant with no intervening steps. Any sound, heat radiation, and waste products not tapped by thermocouples to provide electricity and heat for payload requirements are carried out the exhaust port. 4.>>The system is being designed as proof-of-principle test That's a lot of money wasted needed for the proof of principle (for VASMIR) If VASMIR the best NASA can do, then I have nothing to worry about with my competitors. With my design, I need only only place 20 pounds or so of Americium241 in a 1' dia hole 10' deep drilled in a three mile arctic ice sheet to prove my principle and allow other to see and measure my engine exhaust. Obtained free from recycled smoke detectors (1/2 gram of americium 241 for rocket or bomb use) per detector); the only significant cost would be the travel expense for me and those verifying witnesses and the heated ice auger needed plus camera film. Since the China principle is well known and understood and proven to my satisfaction, to save in even that expense I will probably just sit and wait for the first atomic reactor complete meltdown. When this "dirty" exhaust going out and up from the reactor is described, It is only a manner of time before other independently invent my engine by noticing the rocket exhaust potential of the matter going up out of the hole for a long time with great velocity (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). I will step in with my legally documented prior invention claim preventing their economic benefit without my license fee. ''=) Regards, Tom Jackson > > > > "People do love to go to weird places for reasons we can't imagine -- > mostly > > because they have too much money." > > - Freeman Dyson > > -- > "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... > We borrow it from our children." > The Lagging edge of technology: > http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html > > From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1535" "Sunday" "19" "March" "2000" "21:23:04" "-0500" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "29" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1535 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA04245 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:25:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.50]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA04240 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:25:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.96.108]) by mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.31a 201-229-119-114) with ESMTP id <20000320022458.KGCE18248.mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 02:24:58 +0000 Message-ID: <38D58B88.E1346318@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com CC: starship Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:23:04 -0500 > > Ok, but I will just use a joy stick and throttle sensors from my analog > computer. As the human brain is one of the best and biggest analog computers > around (especially mine ;=)), I will take 20 other brains from > starship-design list or clone of mine with me for redundancy. :=) Just an aside, but the human (as well as other animal) brain is not an analog processor, it is digital. A neuron either fires or it doesn't. The difference is that organic brains are asynchronous; they don't require a clock signal, and don't ask me how they sort out signals without one. My guess is that they work on more of a parallel processing scheme. I am a fan of analog, myself, just for the record, but it just ain't the way things really get done. I agree, though, on the capability of the human brain, PROVIDED it is properly fed, rested, exercised, and entertained, and not distracted by god-knows-what, say an urge to sneeze. The list of distractions is endless, and you really should have at least 20 on any really critical job. Miscalculating a vector angle by the tiniest fraction can put you ludicrously far off target over interstellar distances, just to cite an obvious example. I'd really rather trust such stuff to machines, and we've already got them in use today. Check out the Hubble telescope as an example of this. Also, I like the idea of the triple redundancy computer arrangement. It's the old "I tell you three times" concept, which showed up in some Robert Heinlein novel, way back when. Keep looking up, Curtis From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["979" "Sunday" "19" "March" "2000" "19:46:40" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "20" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 979 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA06992 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:43:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA06968 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:43:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin58.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.58]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA17990; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 19:37:24 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38D59110.D99FA400@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <38D58B88.E1346318@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: STAR1SHIP@aol.com, starship Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 19:46:40 -0700 Curtis Manges wrote: > Just an aside, but the human (as well as other animal) brain is not an analog > processor, it is digital. A neuron either fires or it doesn't. The difference is > that organic brains are asynchronous; they don't require a clock signal, and don't > ask me how they sort out signals without one. My guess is that they work on more > of a parallel processing scheme. I am a fan of analog, myself, just for the > record, but it just ain't the way things really get done. > The brain uses a pulse frequency type of modulation. More activity more pulses. Byte magazine did a good article a few years back. High level thought is about 6 or 7 levels of logic filtering from raw data. Anybody want to write a "Brain" virus and turn the internet into one large "brain". -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5282" "Sunday" "19" "March" "2000" "23:20:58" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "122" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5282 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22504 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:21:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA22499 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:21:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id c.69.27ea87d (4333); Sun, 19 Mar 2000 23:20:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <69.27ea87d.2607012a@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 31 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: clmanges@worldnet.att.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 23:20:58 EST In a message dated 3/19/00 6:37:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: > > > Ok, but I will just use a joy stick and throttle sensors from my analog > > computer. As the human brain is one of the best and biggest analog > computers > > around (especially mine ;=)), I will take 20 other brains from > > starship-design list or clone of mine with me for redundancy. :=) If forced to make clones of myself for the crew. A XY gene alteration of 1/2 the embroys could provide for multiplication required for colony expansion. Cosmic particle collisions would then be desirable to provide genetic mutaion to widen the gene pool for multiplication and suvivability. > Just an aside, but the human (as well as other animal) brain is not an > analog > processor, it is digital. Hi Curtis, Well, I find my self in a position to defend my words without the credential or source material of a medical degree, but will try any way certified in both digital and analog computer fields. The brain processes data from the 5 senses of sight, touch, taste, sound, smell. This is like an autopilot analog computer that takes the input from sensors measuring yaw, pitch, roll, rate and acceleration. The amplitude (not digital pulse) data is processed in real time and the output delivered by chemical means to the spinal nerve system to the control mechanisms (muscles). The real time processor differs from a digital processor in that the speed is determined by the speed of the messages sent through the neuron pathways. Digital processors take time to analyze the input data by analysis through an instruction set which takes processor time so the output would not be delivered in real time (Now-when it inputs) but later at some future time after digital processing. I know of no evidence that the signals of the brain go to a central processing unit (digital processor) as you suggest. I kind of like the brain map made in ancient times where the brain surface convolutions form different (though size distorted) parts of the body. This better explains phantom pain so that when a limb is removed, the patient still senses its presence, In fact I witnessed a one arm man strike with his missing arm at another man and watched the man flinch anticipating the blow. Reflex actions are real time processed and not digitally processed. >A neuron either fires or it doesn't. The > difference is > that organic brains are asynchronous; they don't require a clock signal, and > don't > ask me how they sort out signals without one. My guess is that they work on > more > of a parallel processing scheme. I am a fan of analog, myself, just for the > record, but it just ain't the way things really get done. Fuzzy logic would be my quess :=). > I agree, though, on the capability of the human brain, PROVIDED it is > properly > fed, rested, exercised, and entertained, and not distracted by god-knows- > what, say > an urge to sneeze. The list of distractions is endless, and you really > should have > at least 20 on any really critical job. That is what I thought. Anthological studies say 50 is required for village size. No supporting data was given and some counter data suggests that the earth may have been populated by starting with only two. So I made the decision to use twenty with each having multiple and redundant skills. This decision was made more to start with something to get concrete mass and item data for engine design specifications that could by then multiplied by any factor should another crew number be found better suited for a star journey without having to redo the research. > Miscalculating a vector angle by the > tiniest fraction can put you ludicrously far off target over interstellar > distances, just to cite an obvious example. Dead reckoning navigation (see star and go that way) is the method I intend to use and so do not have much use for trigonometric limitations or getting lost in space ;+)> > I'd really rather trust such > stuff to > machines, and we've already got them in use today. Check out the Hubble > telescope > as an example of this. Poor example there supporting your point :=) Have you checked out my 3-d telescope abaord the payload deck below linked. I did have a link to an observatory that would let you point and look through their telescope free on your PC monitor by sending them the star or object and time coordinates but I lost the link to the England (I think) observatory CyberSpace Star Ship > Also, I like the idea of the triple redundancy computer arrangement. It's > the old > "I tell you three times" concept, which showed up in some Robert Heinlein > novel, > way back when. I liked his books also. Little did I know reading of his star ship cadets that someday I would be a real starship commander. Another SCI-faction author you might like is Poul Anderson's "Tau Ceti" He uses Einstein's time dilation consequence in a fictionalized account near light speed relativistically to transverse galaxies in short periods of the astronauts life span. > Keep looking up, I am up there now looking down ;) Regards, Tom > > Curtis From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2828" "Monday" "20" "March" "2000" "00:30:44" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "88" "Re: RE: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "[Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2828 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03676 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:31:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03667 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:31:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 4.b4.2eae368 (4243); Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:30:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, KellySt@aol.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:30:44 EST In a message dated 3/18/00 9:42:24 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> >Rotary Rocket and LightCraft are the only ones that look to >> be ready in >> >the near future.+3 years. The other SSTO's are still several >> years away. >> >> Actually neiather are doing that well. Space Access is doing >> pretty well, >> and they completed the ground tests of the most critical >> parts. Namely the >> ejector ramjets. They alone are a dramatic improvement over >> Rotary or most >> of the other designs. Who's lightcraft by the way? > >Rotary has yet to go any further in its testing program than DCX did. I >still think DCX was the better way to go. Better then rotary? Yes. >Lightcraft has flown nothing >but >MODELS. Lightcraft's biggest problem is building sufficiently powerful >ground lasers for a full size craft - none currently exist. > >BTW, any laser capable of lifting a full size cargo or passenger carrying >lightcraft to orbit makes one hell of an ABM weapon system and will likely >run into unexpected political problems as well.... Agreed. Wouldn't want to be able to defend ourselves. ;/ === >> >> Why? Regular fusion research (ignoring the DOE work) has >> shown excelent >> >> results. Its generally assumed we could get fusin in a >> decades or two >> >if we >> >> tried. Space is thought to be a "Market" that could support it. > >Space has almost no need for fusion power expect for spacecraft propulsion. >Solar power is easier, freely available and far cheaper. Solar power is only avalible in the inner solar system. Even at Mars its chancy. You want to go past that you need nukes or fusion, and nukes are a political no-no. Space needs high power propulsion to get around. Fusion is politacally infeasable, so they ae thinking of looking into fusion. >> Since no one has any pressing reason to build on, no one ever >> really started the 10 year program. > >Bingo! As long as fossil fuel is cheap, you can forget fusion.... > >> >Funding is a big problem as investors always think of the >> next 6 months >> >rather than the next 6 years. >> >> Interstellar exploration won't interest any investors. It >> couldn't return >> anything marketable. > >This has always been a big problem with interstellar exploration. Other >than >scientific knowledge of limited marketable value, there is precious little >reason to go. The only thing that I can even remotely come up with is some >sort of Diaspora where some disaffected group of society decide to leave >in >mass and somehow fund it by pooling their resources. To a remote colony where they will be highly dependant on Earth sent suplies?! There won't be any >investment return, just a new chance at life the way they want to live >it. >Science fiction paints a very unrealistic picture I'm afraid. Agree. > >Lee Kelly From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["818" "Monday" "20" "March" "2000" "00:30:49" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 818 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03728 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:31:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03719 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:31:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id i.1a.15b20dd (4243); Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:30:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1a.15b20dd.26071189@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Stravonski@aol.com, johnbean@ebard.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:30:49 EST In a message dated 3/19/00 8:22:45 AM, Stravonski writes: >Has anyone thought about the development in organic computer technology >that is being worked in labs? Computer circuits that are self repairing. > Kind of a combination between neural nets and processors. They've already >put a tiny chip into a cell, with the terribly slow rate that space advancements >are doing (at least the manned ones), this technology could be up and running >before we ever leave for the nearest star. That way, you don't have to >make chips with equipment and such, you can grow them. They would also >presumably last longer than silicon as well as grow and work better. Just >a thought. > >Mike Pfeifer Organic chips would be less relyable, or storable, then the current ones, also the techs more difficult to work with. From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2510" "Monday" "20" "March" "2000" "00:30:47" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "64" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2510 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03669 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:31:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03659 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:31:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id i.40.1ecf28a (4243); Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:30:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <40.1ecf28a.26071187@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: johnbean@ebard.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:30:47 EST Several good points. Most specifically. >I don't know if I agree with the make-everything-myself idea when it comes >to really complicated processes that are really expensive such as chip >making. At some point you need to repair/replace the "table top wafer fab" >and the technology to do that would have to be carried. Then that >technology needs to be repaired so you need the technology to do that. >This >goes on forever with each iteration adding weight, complexity and cost. > >Also making chips is not as simple as a wafer lab according to the guys >who >are making custom chips for me. The process is big by nature, requires >lots >of energy, lots of chemicals and consumables, very skilled people and >ultra-high tech ultra expensive equipment. These guys snicker or drool >whenever you talk about a small or inexpensive or easy prototype machine >like you are discussing. Both very true. As the scaling goes up, you start with a ship - and up with a country! >== >A better suggestion may be to design a "generic" logic module using modern >technology. I'm not suggesting a few gates on a board as in the 80s I am >suggesting a 32 Bit ARM processor, a DSP, 160k of program flash, 8Mbits >of >data flash, 12k of RAM, a USB port, an IRDA port, some A/D channels, some >D/A channels, somer general purpose IO pins. This could be built on a 2x3 >board that uses very low current (50ma with both CPU and DSP cooking at >22/80 mips) at 3.0 volts using available (off the shelf) technology for >$20 >a board in medium volumes at about 2 oz a board. Hum, a super module with a ton of generic adaptable circuts, that could handel everything? A very good idea. >Another way to extend the mission duration is to send supply ships ahead, >or send them faster from behind with some replacement stuff. Since "stuff" >doesn't need gravity or environmental controls or oxygen or food or water >it can be moved much faster and much cheaper than we can move people. Not really. The main limit of speed is power, noyt human stress. And the suply warehouse doesn't need to be in the habitation aea. You might as well send the stuff along on the main ship and save the weight of the extra engines and flight controls (not to mention a automated ship relyable enough to trust everyones life on.) >== >Considering FTL isn't going to happen soon, if ever, it is probably safe >to >assume that we would go pretty slow in a colony ship. Can't go that slow, it would require too huge of a ship. From VM Mon Mar 20 10:13:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3826" "Monday" "20" "March" "2000" "00:30:41" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "92" "Re: RE: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3826 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03761 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:32:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03751 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:32:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 4.78.2dc050a (4243); Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:30:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <78.2dc050a.26071181@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, johnbean@ebard.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:30:41 EST >> The real difference is that you have to get used to the >> concept that in >> some things, such as modern electronics, you are often better >> off to throw >> a bunch of parts at a simple task than to make something custom. > >Kelly already discovered this with consumables. It turns out that weight >wise it is easier and more economical to carry stores than to attempt to >implement a completely self sustaining closed eco system for any trip less >than about a hundred years. well, I think it was more like 40. ;) But it does blow the assumptions of needing a full eco/fam system all the time. >Most of us here are not trying to build a >generation ship anyway, so the same reasoning applies. Design the ship >to >last for the length of the voyage plan on some repairs, use modular >components wherever possible, and cross your fingers... You pay's your money, and takes your chances. >> Another way to extend the mission duration is to send supply >> ships ahead, >> or send them faster from behind with some replacement stuff. >> Since "stuff" >> doesn't need gravity or environmental controls or oxygen or >> food or water >> it can be moved much faster and much cheaper than we can move people. >> Although re-supply may be distasteful to "pure" starship travel the >> reallity is that even here on earth it was, and is, considered normal. >> Aircraft carriers and submarines and space stations do it, the only >> difference is distance. > >Practical idea in theory, and it may be the only way. However, logistically, >it will not be anywhere as easy as you make it sound. I tend to prefer >the >first mission as a Pathfinder mission, specialized crew of around ten to >twenty, LOTS of computer support, running fast and light. It would be sent >to targets that had already been identified as special in some way, such >as >the presence of Oxygen in the spectrum of its planets. Given any near future trip would take decades of ship time, is a ship that small practical? Could that few people do any real survey of a star system? >The Explorer mission would follow only after a Pathfinder reported back >that >there was a reason for more extensive exploration, such as a potentially >habitable planet, or perhaps just to study life already there. This mission >would actually be a small fleet consisting of the Explorer ship itself, >and >several freighters slaved to the Explorer. The freighters would carry >spares, extra supplies, machinery, tools, and intrasystem craft including >landers. The Explorer mission would consist of several hundred to several >thousand people, enough to establish at least a permanent research presence, >including establishing mining and manufacturing operations sufficient to >support the mission and any follow on missions. Why send separte frieghters? Its easier and simpler to maintain, to just integrate the stuff in one ship. I used to like the redundancy of multiple shipsm but given the size one ship would need to be, multiples started sounding crazy. >The last mission would be the Caravan mission. This is the big one. The >colonists would arrive in one or more very large ships, hopefully in some >sort of cryo sleep to conserve mass, so that the trip would go faster with >fewer support craft or resupplies. Tools, supplies and machinery needed >by >the colonists would already be there ahead of them, built by the automated >factories put in place by the Explorer crew. > >I agree that FTL probably won't happen any time soon, and that isn't the >purpose of this list anyway. I DO think we will be able to reach close >to >the speed of light with derivatives of today's technology within a hundred >years. It is after all really nothing more than a brute force application >of >things we already know or suspect how to do. Hum? >Lee Kelly From VM Mon Mar 20 14:15:56 2000 Content-Length: 984 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["984" "Monday" "20" "March" "2000" "15:06:34" "-0500" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "21" "[Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 984 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA20778 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:08:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA20773 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:08:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.98.220]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000320200827.FKAA24417.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:08:27 +0000 Message-ID: <38D684CA.33E3A13E@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship Subject: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:06:34 -0500 > > >== > >A better suggestion may be to design a "generic" logic module using modern > >technology. I'm not suggesting a few gates on a board as in the 80s I am > >suggesting a 32 Bit ARM processor, a DSP, 160k of program flash, 8Mbits > >of > >data flash, 12k of RAM, a USB port, an IRDA port, some A/D channels, some > >D/A channels, somer general purpose IO pins. This could be built on a 2x3 > >board that uses very low current (50ma with both CPU and DSP cooking at > >22/80 mips) at 3.0 volts using available (off the shelf) technology for > >$20 > >a board in medium volumes at about 2 oz a board. > This idea has a lot of advantages -- standardized power supply and interface connectors and such. When someone says, "Hey, this thing doesn't work, what do I do?", the answer is "Swap the board," and it won't be necessary to ask "Which one?" Color-code and polarize the connectors, and when the microwave oven goes down, the cook could send the dishwasher to fix it. Curtis From VM Mon Mar 20 14:15:56 2000 Content-Length: 6497 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6497" "Monday" "20" "March" "2000" "15:39:31" "-0500" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "150" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6497 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07376 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:41:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07358 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:41:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.96.107]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000320204124.GCLR24417.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:41:24 +0000 Message-ID: <38D68C83.EA17D033@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <69.27ea87d.2607012a@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com CC: starship Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:39:31 -0500 STAR1SHIP@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/19/00 6:37:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, > clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: > > > > > > Ok, but I will just use a joy stick and throttle sensors from my analog > > > computer. As the human brain is one of the best and biggest analog > > computers > > > around (especially mine ;=)), I will take 20 other brains from > > > starship-design list or clone of mine with me for redundancy. :=) > > If forced to make clones of myself for the crew. A XY gene alteration of 1/2 > the embroys could provide for multiplication required for colony expansion. > Cosmic particle collisions would then be desirable to provide genetic mutaion > to widen the gene pool for multiplication and suvivability. > > > Just an aside, but the human (as well as other animal) brain is not an > > analog > > processor, it is digital. > > Hi Curtis, > Well, I find my self in a position to defend my words without the credential > or source material of a medical degree, but will try any way certified in > both digital and analog computer fields. > > The brain processes data from the 5 senses of sight, touch, taste, sound, > smell. > This is like an autopilot analog computer that takes the input from sensors > measuring yaw, pitch, roll, rate and acceleration. The amplitude (not digital > pulse) data is processed in real time and the output delivered by chemical > means to the spinal nerve system to the control mechanisms (muscles). The > real time processor differs from a digital processor in that the speed is > determined by the speed of the messages sent through the neuron pathways. > Digital processors take time to analyze the input data by analysis through an > instruction set which takes processor time so the output would not be > delivered in real time (Now-when it inputs) but later at some future time > after digital processing. > > I know of no evidence that the signals of the brain go to a central > processing unit (digital processor) as you suggest. I kind of like the brain > map made in ancient times where the brain surface convolutions form different > (though size distorted) parts of the body. Well, it is, and it isn't. Yes, the brain is analogous to the CPU in a computer, but it does have specific function centers for sight, smell, etc. Even at that, though, any particular stimulus causes activity at various places throughout the brain, and I don't think the reason is yet understood. There is some distributive processing going on. Suggested reading: "The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe" by Robert Jastrow. > This better explains phantom pain > so that when a limb is removed, the patient still senses its presence, In > fact I witnessed a one arm man strike with his missing arm at another man and > watched the man flinch anticipating the blow. Reflex actions are real time > processed and not digitally processed. > > >A neuron either fires or it doesn't. The > > difference is > > that organic brains are asynchronous; they don't require a clock signal, > and > > don't > > ask me how they sort out signals without one. My guess is that they work > on > > more > > of a parallel processing scheme. I am a fan of analog, myself, just for the > > record, but it just ain't the way things really get done. > > Fuzzy logic would be my quess :=). > > > I agree, though, on the capability of the human brain, PROVIDED it is > > properly > > fed, rested, exercised, and entertained, and not distracted by god-knows- > > what, say > > an urge to sneeze. The list of distractions is endless, and you really > > should have > > at least 20 on any really critical job. > > That is what I thought. Anthological studies say 50 is required for village > size. No supporting data was given and some counter data suggests that the > earth may have been populated by starting with only two. So I made the > decision to use twenty with each having multiple and redundant skills. This > decision was made more to start with something to get concrete mass and item > data for engine design specifications that could by then multiplied by any > factor should another crew number be found better suited for a star journey > without having to redo the research. > > > Miscalculating a vector angle by the > > tiniest fraction can put you ludicrously far off target over interstellar > > distances, just to cite an obvious example. > > Dead reckoning navigation (see star and go that way) is the method I intend > to use and so do not have much use for trigonometric limitations > or getting lost in space ;+)> You'd really try to pilot a ship over interstellar distances that way??! You've got to be kidding. > > > > I'd really rather trust such > > stuff to > > machines, and we've already got them in use today. Check out the Hubble > > telescope > > as an example of this. > > Poor example there supporting your point :=) I didn't think so. Consider that Hubble has to point very precisely at a target for some rather long exposures (many hours); this thing adjusts its orientation constantly, with enormous precision, and with no external guidance (I think). BTW, it gets its targeting feedback from a guide scope, secondary to the main scope. Really, though, tracking and navigation are now being done very well by machines, and will only get better. Why fatigue your eyes trying to keep a target in crosshairs? > > > Have you checked out my 3-d telescope abaord the payload deck below linked. > I did have a link to an observatory that would let you point and look through > their telescope free on your PC monitor by sending them the star or object > and time coordinates but I lost the link to the England (I think) observatory > > CyberSpace > Star Ship > > > Also, I like the idea of the triple redundancy computer arrangement. It's > > the old > > "I tell you three times" concept, which showed up in some Robert Heinlein > > novel, > > way back when. > > I liked his books also. Little did I know reading of his star ship cadets > that someday I would be a real starship commander. Another SCI-faction author > you might like is Poul Anderson's "Tau Ceti" He uses Einstein's time dilation > consequence in a fictionalized account near light speed relativistically to > transverse galaxies in short periods of the astronauts life span. > > > Keep looking up, > > I am up there now looking down ;) > > Regards, > Tom > > > > > Curtis From VM Mon Mar 20 14:19:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3090" "Monday" "20" "March" "2000" "14:00:09" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "64" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3090 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA12235 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:18:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA12225 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:17:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2KMHvg04752 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:17:57 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2KM0Aa14622; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:00:10 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14550.40809.68431.6621@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <4a.2f1c613.26055f96@aol.com> References: <4a.2f1c613.26055f96@aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:00:09 -0800 (PST) STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > Einstein invented the atomic bomb and that fact blows your nonsense theories > you were taught out of the water. The atomic bomb was invented by a group of physicists and engineers working for the Manhattan Project. That group didn't include Einstein. Einstein showed that you could release enormous quantities of energy from matter, but was not directly involved in creating the atomic bomb. > http://www4.district125.k12.il.us/faculty/bsparaci/sr/Einstein.html That wasn't written by Einstein himself; it's a somewhat inaccurate summary of Einstein's work written by some students. See the URL http://www4.district125.k12.il.us/faculty/bsparaci/sr/ for the context. > The increased relativistic 1/2 ton mass > approaches infinity as the velocity approaches light speed. > This real difference in the masses and resulting energy is the factor you > underestimate the velocity obtainable by my machine. But if the fuel gets heavier as the ship goes faster, so would the ship, and therefore that increasing amount of energy you think you'd get would have to be applied to an equally magnified payload mass. The effects cancel out. The term "relativistic mass increase" is actually a physical misnomer that resulted from a misunderstanding of Einstein's writings. Timothy van der Linden gave us a citation of a very nice article explaining the history of the term "relativistic mass" and why it's often currently discouraged; see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~stevev/sd-archive/sd-1999-1/msg00129.html You can get a seemingly large amount of energy from 1/2 ton of radioactive material. But you can't get more than 1/2 ton * c^2 joules from it, and much less than that if all you do is let is undergo normal fission. You need much more than that amount of energy to accelerate a multi-ton ship to a high fraction of c, whether you do your calculations with Newtonian or relativistic equations. > It is time for you to put up or shut up and listen. > Show me other wise. > > Respectfully. > Tom Jackson Honestly, I'm not seeing you showing anyone here much respect. If anyone questions the contradictions or logical errors you make, you just start making more grandiose and flawed statements and citations, or referring to erroneous citations. I'm listening, but you're not going to convince anyone with internally inconsistent bluster. If you're convinced that we're sticks-in-the-mud brainwashed by the scientific establishment, then I recommend that you unsubscribe from this mailing list. Let me remind you again of the statement you should have seen when you signed up for the list: Although clearly there is much speculation involved in the development of future technology, this mailing list is practically oriented and proposals should be justifiable using presently-known engineering techniques and scientific knowledge. Proposals involving highly speculative topics such as FTL (faster-than-light) propulsion or novel energy generation techniques will be treated quite skeptically by list members. From VM Mon Mar 20 14:22:06 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1167" "Monday" "20" "March" "2000" "15:56:06" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "32" "RE: RE: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1167 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14266 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:21:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14260 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:21:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p435.gnt.com [204.49.91.51]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id QAA09278; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:21:06 -0600 Message-ID: <000601bf92ba$849a2490$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: Subject: RE: RE: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:56:06 -0600 Kelly, > >Space has almost no need for fusion power expect for > spacecraft propulsion. > >Solar power is easier, freely available and far cheaper. > > Solar power is only avalible in the inner solar system. Even > at Mars its > chancy. You want to go past that you need nukes or fusion, > and nukes are a > political no-no. I don't have the figures to back this up, but I would think even at the orbit of Mars there would still be enough solar radiation for solar power, perhaps not much beyond that. As far as the political realities of fission versus fusion, I think a space based civilization might have a litter different take on the realities than us ground pounders who are worried about contaminating our biosphere - which is not an issue there. Fissionables and fusionables are both in good supply in the asteroids... > > To a remote colony where they will be highly dependant on > Earth sent suplies?! There won't BE any remote colonies dependent upon Earth for resupply. If they aren't self sufficient, they will die. (Science and research bases are not colonies.) BTW, what happened to your spelling? It has recently gotten MUCH better... Lee From VM Mon Mar 20 14:22:06 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1728" "Monday" "20" "March" "2000" "16:07:29" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "50" "RE: RE: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1728 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14349 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:21:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14341 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:21:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p435.gnt.com [204.49.91.51]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id QAA09293; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:21:09 -0600 Message-ID: <000701bf92ba$861ec8c0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <78.2dc050a.26071181@aol.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , , Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:07:29 -0600 Kelly, > well, I think it was more like 40. ;) But it does blow the > assumptions of > needing a full eco/fam system all the time. You don't really think I bothered to go back and look it up do you? > > Given any near future trip would take decades of ship time, > is a ship that > small practical? Could that few people do any real survey of > a star system? > Well, I was assuming that IF we went at all, it would be possible to go CLOSE to c. Given that, and dilation effects, I think trips lasting a few years (ship time) are feasible. Depending on the dilation coefficient, that could get us out to as far as several hundred light years within a few centuries without ever needing FTL. Of course, if we change the assumptions to something like .3 c, you are right. > Why send separte frieghters? Its easier and simpler to > maintain, to just > integrate the stuff in one ship. > > I used to like the redundancy of multiple shipsm but given > the size one ship > would need to be, multiples started sounding crazy. I was expanding upon the carrier group resupply paradigm that was mentioned earlier. If the freighters are capable of higher velocities than the expedition, or are launched FIRST, then it might make things easier. No sense shutting out options unnecessarily. > Hum? Ho... I was alluding to refinement of existing technology leading to greater levels of performance, as in first generation makes it to 0.3 c, second generation can reach 0.6 c, third generation can reach 0.9 c, etc. No REAL major discovery, just refinement of the same design. That is a brute force approach, as opposed to a new design, such as inertial nullifiers allowing a jump from 0.3 c to 0.999999 c overnight. Lee From VM Mon Mar 20 14:50:45 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["526" "Monday" "20" "March" "2000" "16:16:54" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "18" "RE: starship-design: Plasma rocket engine makes space flight much faster - 10 Feb 2000" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 526 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA19220 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:34:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19210 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:34:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p435.gnt.com [204.49.91.51]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id QAA09331; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:21:18 -0600 Message-ID: <000901bf92ba$8bff4d00$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <38D53CB7.B7E2C5A0@jetnet.ab.ca> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Ben Franchuk'" Cc: Subject: RE: starship-design: Plasma rocket engine makes space flight much faster - 10 Feb 2000 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:16:54 -0600 > > Sounds good but for 2 things. > 1) Still no source power for said engine. > 2) Is not helium going to be the first chemical element that > we run out > of > around 2010? > Hmm, well power MIGHT be a problem . I am assuming that Dr Chang-Diaz and his colleagues at NASA have thought of this, seeing as the engine is slated to fly a mission next year. As for helium, buy stock in the Lunar Mining Company, if you can't find it listed, write me back, I am still forming it. There is LOTS of Helium 3 on the Moon. Lee From VM Mon Mar 20 15:05:15 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["632" "Monday" "20" "March" "2000" "16:07:47" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 632 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA29485 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:04:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA29475 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:04:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin37.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.37]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA28954; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:58:21 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38D6AF43.3894523C@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <69.27ea87d.2607012a@aol.com> <38D68C83.EA17D033@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: STAR1SHIP@aol.com, starship Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:07:47 -0700 Curtis Manges wrote: > > STAR1SHIP@aol.com wrote: > reckoning navigation (see star and go that way) is the method I intend > > to use and so do not have much use for trigonometric limitations > > or getting lost in space ;+)> > > You'd really try to pilot a ship over interstellar distances that way??! You've > got to be kidding. > Why not ... stars don't move that fast, just remember to break early. Star !!! Screeech ... < grin > -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Mar 20 17:00:52 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1006" "Monday" "20" "March" "2000" "19:49:37" "-0500" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "30" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1006 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA05351 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:52:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.47]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA05345 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:52:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.96.150]) by mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000321005130.JOIG10526.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:51:30 +0000 Message-ID: <38D6C721.2C3DFEEB@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <69.27ea87d.2607012a@aol.com> <38D68C83.EA17D033@worldnet.att.net> <38D6AF43.3894523C@jetnet.ab.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Ben Franchuk CC: starship Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 19:49:37 -0500 Ben Franchuk wrote: > Curtis Manges wrote: > > > > STAR1SHIP@aol.com wrote: > > reckoning navigation (see star and go that way) is the method I intend > > > to use and so do not have much use for trigonometric limitations > > > or getting lost in space ;+)> > > > > You'd really try to pilot a ship over interstellar distances that way??! You've > > got to be kidding. > > > > Why not ... stars don't move that fast, just remember to break early. It's a trick of perspective. I've heard they're actually boogyin' along at a pretty good clip (I don't recall how fast). In fact, the velocity of a target star may make it harder to get to than we think. Remember that the universe is still expanding, and most of it is (wisely, perhaps ;-) ) running away from us. > > > Star !!! Screeech ... < grin > > -- > "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... > We borrow it from our children." > The Lagging edge of technology: > http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Mar 20 17:17:22 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["852" "Monday" "20" "March" "2000" "17:06:06" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "16" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 852 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA09300 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:05:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA09294 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:05:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2L15m318000 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:05:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2L167p15476; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:06:07 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14550.51966.64674.486846@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <38D6C721.2C3DFEEB@worldnet.att.net> References: <69.27ea87d.2607012a@aol.com> <38D68C83.EA17D033@worldnet.att.net> <38D6AF43.3894523C@jetnet.ab.ca> <38D6C721.2C3DFEEB@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:06:06 -0800 (PST) Curtis Manges writes: > It's a trick of perspective. I've heard they're actually boogyin' > along at a pretty good clip (I don't recall how fast). In fact, the > velocity of a target star may make it harder to get to than we > think. Remember that the universe is still expanding, and most of it > is (wisely, perhaps ;-) ) running away from us. Typical velocities of nearby stars relative to the sun are in tens of km/s. The expansion of the universe is only significant on an intergalactic scale; orbital motion around the galactic center dominates the motions of stars in our neighborhood. While you'd have to take the relative motion of your destination star into account, its relative velocity is going to be pretty small compared to your spacecraft's velocity if you're planning on getting there in anything less than thousands of years. From VM Tue Mar 21 09:28:51 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1109" "Monday" "20" "March" "2000" "21:25:31" "-0500" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "25" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1109 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00695 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:27:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.51]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA00690 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:27:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.96.150]) by mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000321022724.EQZF21015.mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:27:24 +0000 Message-ID: <38D6DD9B.15C4B9A9@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <69.27ea87d.2607012a@aol.com> <38D68C83.EA17D033@worldnet.att.net> <38D6AF43.3894523C@jetnet.ab.ca> <38D6C721.2C3DFEEB@worldnet.att.net> <14550.51966.64674.486846@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Steve VanDevender CC: starship Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:25:31 -0500 Steve VanDevender wrote: > Curtis Manges writes: > > It's a trick of perspective. I've heard they're actually boogyin' > > along at a pretty good clip (I don't recall how fast). In fact, the > > velocity of a target star may make it harder to get to than we > > think. Remember that the universe is still expanding, and most of it > > is (wisely, perhaps ;-) ) running away from us. > > Typical velocities of nearby stars relative to the sun are in tens of > km/s. The expansion of the universe is only significant on an > intergalactic scale; orbital motion around the galactic center dominates > the motions of stars in our neighborhood. > > While you'd have to take the relative motion of your destination star > into account, its relative velocity is going to be pretty small compared > to your spacecraft's velocity if you're planning on getting there in > anything less than thousands of years. Thanks for straightening me out on that. Would I be right in guessing that the time scale is about similar to the precession of Earth's polar axis? I know Polaris wasn't always the pole star . . . From VM Tue Mar 21 09:28:51 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1044" "Monday" "20" "March" "2000" "18:42:03" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1044 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA04003 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:41:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA03997 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:41:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2L2ft309865 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:41:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2L2gEe15923; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:42:14 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14550.57723.815675.278714@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <38D6DD9B.15C4B9A9@worldnet.att.net> References: <69.27ea87d.2607012a@aol.com> <38D68C83.EA17D033@worldnet.att.net> <38D6AF43.3894523C@jetnet.ab.ca> <38D6C721.2C3DFEEB@worldnet.att.net> <14550.51966.64674.486846@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38D6DD9B.15C4B9A9@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:42:03 -0800 (PST) Curtis Manges writes: > > Typical velocities of nearby stars relative to the sun are in tens of > > km/s. The expansion of the universe is only significant on an > > intergalactic scale; orbital motion around the galactic center dominates > > the motions of stars in our neighborhood. > > > > While you'd have to take the relative motion of your destination star > > into account, its relative velocity is going to be pretty small compared > > to your spacecraft's velocity if you're planning on getting there in > > anything less than thousands of years. > > Thanks for straightening me out on that. Would I be right in guessing that > the time scale is about similar to the precession of Earth's polar axis? I > know Polaris wasn't always the pole star . . . The Earth's precession is caused by tidal interaction with the Moon, and it takes about 22,000 years for the poles to precess through a complete circle. The rotation period of the Galaxy is something like 250 million years. The two phenomena aren't really related. From VM Tue Mar 21 09:28:51 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["13063" "Monday" "20" "March" "2000" "23:34:05" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "275" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 13063 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA25254 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:34:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA25249 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:34:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id s.c0.20e8905 (3974); Mon, 20 Mar 2000 23:34:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 31 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stevev@efn.org CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 23:34:05 EST In a message dated 3/20/00 2:19:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, stevev@efn.org writes: > STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > > Einstein invented the atomic bomb and that fact blows your nonsense > theories > > you were taught out of the water. > > The atomic bomb was invented by a group of physicists and engineers > working for the Manhattan Project. That group didn't include Einstein. > Einstein showed that you could release enormous quantities of energy > from matter, but was not directly involved in creating the atomic bomb. Steve, I at no time did I say he was involved in building the device which was the main purpose of the Manhattan project. I said he invented the device. All invention processes have benchmark dates. Date of conception where the device is first formed in the minds eye. That was around 1913,14 for the atomic bomb. Date of reduction to practice. That was 1938 when the device is described in text and in some cases can include drawings to another to where the another person can build the device. For the atomic bomb that was when he told (1938) Enrico Fermi how to build the device in a ten minute telephone conversation by using impact forces created by firing disks or half spheres together or surrounding a sphere with explosive charge to focus as a lens system (external spherical casing) the impact shockwave at the center of the mass. Sufficient force could then to cause the already unstable isotopes of radioactive metals to split (fission) and release the energy of converted mass and energy of smaller elemental parts given high velocity. This reaction would build to a point where the container would burst releasing the energy in an instant of time. Enrico Fermi had figured out near 1920 that Einstein knew how to build such a bomb from reading Einstein's work and when He went to Einstein's house to ask him how to build it. Einstein angrily threw him out stating 'No one will ever build such a device from my theory.' Fermi kept after him till the 1930s and Einstein finally agreed to tell him only if evidence was found that Hitler was working on the device. Fermi then got with German scientists allied with our intelligence agencies throughout the war and fabricated the evidence including cloud chamber drawings and presented the evidence to Einstein. This led to the phone call, I mentioned. Fermi then hand wrote a letter request for funding delivered by Leo Silizard to Einstein. Einstein then typed and signed the letter to Roosevelt much to his regret and under duress as Fermi was working for army intelligence (SS). Einstein was a German National and Foreigner that could do nothing but surrender his personal writing to him. > > http://www4.district125.k12.il.us/faculty/bsparaci/sr/Einstein.html > > That wasn't written by Einstein himself; it's a somewhat inaccurate > summary of Einstein's work written by some students. See the URL > http://www4.district125.k12.il.us/faculty/bsparaci/sr/ for the context. Wrong, the text matches what I read in 1963 of Einstein's near death bed confession of 1955. The see the quotation given Bibliography: "Einstein, Albert." Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia (1994 ed.) Kett, Joseph. The Dictionry of Cultural Literacy, Second edition, Revised and updated. 1993. The American Heritage Dictionary of The English Language, Third Edition. 1992 The next link I am providing you is quoting a women with a top secret clearance from the middle 1940's whose job was to compile for publication Einstein's information on how to build an atomic bomb. She states they failed to do so. He succeeded in early 1955, by finding a female author who took his dictated work, and waited (from fear) before publishing his work in 61 or 62 as he had instructed to publish in juvenile book form to avoid the censors. That is book I read, and these are the links verifying. Note! Einstein wrote very little he dictated most of work. The link; Einstein fondly recalled by area woman Partial quote---- Tuesday, December 28, 1999 Einstein fondly recalled by area woman By KAREN VOYLES Sun staff writer A former military enlistee who once did some typing for Albert Einstein was thrilled to hear that he had been named "Person of the Century" by Time magazine. She would like to read the article but the magazine is not sold in her home county in rural Florida except by subscription. "I already had him pegged -- to me he was the greatest person on this earth," said Jo Garland of rural Gilchrist County. Now 78 and a widow, Garland said her impression of Einstein when she was a young woman was that, "He was a sweet man." This week's Time magazine cover story is about the late scientific genius who won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921, developed the theory of relativity and helped convince President Franklin D. Roosevelt to build the atom bomb. Garland had joined the WACs -- Women's Army Corps -- shortly after it was formed in 1943. She got a top secret security clearance and was sent to work with the Atomic Energy Commission. She had been working on the 59th floor of the Empire State Building handling various clerical duties when her supervisor asked for volunteers. Albert Einstein was named Person of the Century this week by Time magazine. Special to the Sun "They wanted us to do some typing for him (Einstein)," Garland said. "He wanted to put together what he knew about the atomic bomb in book form so he doled out what he wanted typed, and there was no way someone could put it all together after that." Garland said she and the other volunteer typists did their work for Einstein in another building a short walk from the Empire State. Security in the mid-1940s was much more lax than today's world of walk-through metal detectors and fingerprint recognition programs. "The security people would be standing outside the door, but they recognized all of us from the other (Empire State) office and so they would let us in," Garland said. Once at their typewriters, Garland remembered that the WACs got their instructions from a man in baggy clothing with unruly hair -- Einstein. "He would hand it (the day's work) to you and tell you what he wanted and he would tell us not to worry about punctuation or capitalization or anything right then," Garland said. "He wanted universities to be able to study how they had made the atom bomb and he said other people would do all that punctuation." Garland recalled that she was one of about 10 typists who volunteered to work on Einstein's project, a task that took a couple of weeks end partial quote---- And his description on how to build and atomic bomb at this link. A Definitive Analysis of Atomic Power > > The increased relativistic 1/2 ton mass > > approaches infinity as the velocity approaches light speed. > > This real difference in the masses and resulting energy is the factor you > > > underestimate the velocity obtainable by my machine. > > But if the fuel gets heavier as the ship goes faster, so would the ship, > and therefore that increasing amount of energy you think you'd get would > have to be applied to an equally magnified payload mass. The effects > cancel out. You skipped a step the mass that needs to be converted to provide the relativistic energy you calculated was the relativistic mass. To get the mass wrt the ship you have to use the mass transform the other direction (that is why the are called transformations as they go both ways with equal validity) to arrive at the 1/2 ton mass I did unless you made some sort of math error I did not catch. Cancellation of the gamma factor is common with the general rocket equation as (gamma times mass times velocity)of payload=(gamma times mass times velocity) of propellant. Although the respective gamma variable are different letters the values calculated are the same so as gamma subscript payload (gp)=gamma subscript(ge) exhaust then ge/gp = 1 and makes the cancellation valid. > > The term "relativistic mass increase" is actually a physical misnomer > that resulted from a misunderstanding of Einstein's writings. Timothy > van der Linden gave us a citation of a very nice article explaining the > history of the term "relativistic mass" and why it's often currently > discouraged; see > > http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~stevev/sd-archive/sd-1999-1/msg00129.html Mostly nonsense for the reasons I give. Widely taught through rote memorization without understanding the theory falls with methodology of science, logic and deductive reasoning. Relativistic mass causes students to ask questions the professors have no answer for. Saying "I dunno" makes poor teachers feel ignorant. They found it betters to teach without allowing questioning and at test time flunk those who do not agree (captive audience is the student body of academia) > You can get a seemingly large amount of energy from 1/2 ton of > radioactive material. But you can't get more than 1/2 ton * c^2 joules > from it, and much less than that if all you do is let is undergo normal > fission. You need much more than that amount of energy to accelerate a > multi-ton ship to a high fraction of c, whether you do your calculations > with Newtonian or relativistic equations. > > > It is time for you to put up or shut up and listen. > > Show me other wise. > > > > Respectfully. > > Tom Jackson > > Honestly, I'm not seeing you showing anyone here much respect. Only you and Kelly have responded with the attitude that I came to my opinions as they differed from yours from lack of knowledge. Without any anger or disrespect, I patiently provided you with the documentation you alleged did not exist. > If > anyone questions the contradictions or logical errors you make, you just > start making more grandiose and flawed statements and citations, or > referring to erroneous citations. I have only said what I have verified carefully over many years and compiled into my work in an authoritative manner some do find offensive. I have read many of this lists archives and have the highest respect for the differing opinions expressed. > I'm listening, but you're not going > to convince anyone with internally inconsistent bluster. No brag just fact. Ignoring the documentation I offer does all members disservice. Proper scientific examination of any new idea does not begin with your methods of denouncing as false, fraud, confusion or in Kelly' case "Hoax" Proper scientific examination begins with a simple question such as "If this is so then why .....?. This gives the person the reasonable opportunity to provide reasonable explanation or at least save face and change position. Your strong declarative statements immediately attacking the intelligence, training and probably parentage of those not sharing your belief system is nonscientific nonsense. You or anyone here has yet to make me angry ;=) as I am a veteran of sci.physics news group. This group is very well read and behaved and only a breath of fresh air to me... > If you're convinced that we're sticks-in-the-mud brainwashed by the > scientific establishment, then I recommend that you unsubscribe from > this mailing list. No need as only one or two try to shout me down and even those I respect from their accomplishments, even though they do not return the respect. > Let me remind you again of the statement you should > have seen when you signed up for the list: > > Although clearly there is much speculation involved in the > development of future technology, this mailing list is > practically oriented and proposals should be justifiable using > presently-known engineering techniques and scientific knowledge. That is all that I have presented in my responses. Practical and presently known engineering techniques and scientific knowledge. > Proposals involving highly speculative topics such as FTL > (faster-than-light) propulsion or novel energy generation > techniques will be treated quite skeptically by list members. Any idiot can be a skeptic. I treat people with reason being a reasonable man and expect the same. I was forewarned but do not expect when I am attacked with skepticism and not reason, I should not defend with the minimum force required (verified source and credentials). Although I have more than a dozen diplomas from universities I care nothing for the titles bestowed. I do not use my titles in my published work. When readers of my work correspond and start their letters with Dr. Jackson, that is a bestowment of title from peers, that I am most delighted and pleased to acknowledge with the returned legally defined signature. Doctor Thomas H. Jackson, Common Law Doctorates, Math, Physics, Computer Science, General Education From VM Tue Mar 21 09:28:51 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1363" "Monday" "20" "March" "2000" "20:54:04" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "26" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1363 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA29516 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:53:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA29508 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:53:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2L4rr311120 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:53:54 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2L4sDT16624; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:54:13 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14551.108.221490.661580@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:54:04 -0800 (PST) STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > > > The increased relativistic 1/2 ton mass > > > approaches infinity as the velocity approaches light speed. > > > This real difference in the masses and resulting energy is the factor > you > > > > > underestimate the velocity obtainable by my machine. > > > > But if the fuel gets heavier as the ship goes faster, so would the ship, > > and therefore that increasing amount of energy you think you'd get would > > have to be applied to an equally magnified payload mass. The effects > > cancel out. > > You skipped a step the mass that needs to be converted to provide the > relativistic energy you calculated was the relativistic mass. To get > the mass wrt the ship you have to use the mass transform the other > direction (that is why the are called transformations as they go both > ways with equal validity) to arrive at the 1/2 ton mass I did unless > you made some sort of math error I did not catch. The ship carries the fuel. Either both the ship and the fuel get more massive with velocity or both the ship and the fuel stay the same mass. Are you claiming that the fuel gets more massive but the ship that carries it stays the same? Either way the fuel can only provide so much acceleration, and that little fission fuel can't propel a heavier payload to relativistic velocities. From VM Tue Mar 21 09:28:51 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["622" "Tuesday" "21" "March" "2000" "00:24:28" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "29" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 622 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA04947 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:25:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA04942 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:25:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id c.86.19fd2ff (3934); Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:24:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <86.19fd2ff.2608618c@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: clmanges@worldnet.att.net, STAR1SHIP@aol.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:24:28 EST In a message dated 3/20/00 2:42:49 PM, clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: >> Dead reckoning navigation (see star and go that way) is the method I >intend >> to use and so do not have much use for trigonometric limitations >> or getting lost in space ;+)> > >You'd really try to pilot a ship over interstellar distances that way??! >You've >got to be kidding. Its trivial. Aim at the star and boost. Its not going to move relative to the sky? Least not in under a few thousand years. At long as you can range your distence to know when to start your decel. >> >> Regards, >> Tom >> >> > >> > Curtis Kelly From VM Tue Mar 21 09:28:51 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["28190" "Tuesday" "21" "March" "2000" "00:24:10" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "559" "starship-design: Fwd: Articale on the status of the X-33 program." "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 28190 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA05013 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:25:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA04969 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:25:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 4.7a.2eb0b08 (3934); Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:24:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <7a.2eb0b08.2608617a@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_7a.2eb0b08.2608617a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Fwd: Articale on the status of the X-33 program. Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:24:10 EST --part1_7a.2eb0b08.2608617a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/20/00 10:29:41 AM, kgstarks@crnotes.collins.rockwell.com writes: > > >Articale on the status of the X-33 program. Aerospike engines are working >great. Heat tiles were certified a year ago. BUT the composite hydrogen >tank >is considered a near write off. Without the composite tank VentureStar >was >thought to be impractical. Lockheed now thinks it might be doable with >Aluminum, but some in congress are geting upset. Course its Gores baby, >so >expect the Whitehouse tand dems to defend it. > ;/ > >http://www.orlandosentinel.com/automagic/news/2000-03-19/NWSSPACE19031900.htm l > >Will it fly? A > drawing shows how > the X-33 would look > in flight. > > LOCKHEED MARTIN > > Rocket ship of future still > grounded by problems > > Michael Cabbage > Sentinel Space Editor > > Published in The Orlando Sentinel on March 19, 2000 > > CAPE CANAVERAL -- Nobody thought building the > prototype for a revolutionary new spaceship was going > to be easy. > > But few suspected that four years after winning a $941 > million contract from the National Aeronautics and > Space Administration, Lockheed Martin's troubled > X-33 project might still be another two years from > flying. In fact, there is growing concern about whether > the wedge-shaped experimental craft will ever fly. > > A new technology once billed as the key to the > ambitious program is on the verge of being abandoned. > The project is running out of money. And additional > government funds could be delayed by election-year > politics. > > As a result, the dream seems more distant than ever that > X-33 might evolve into VentureStar -- a full-scale > reusable vehicle designed to take off and land similar >to > the space shuttle, but without jettisoning spent boosters > or fuel tanks. Touted as a potential replacement for the > shuttle, a privately owned VentureStar fleet could cut > current launch costs up to 90 percent. That's if it gets > built. > > Fifteen states continue to jockey for two planned > VentureStar launch and landing sites despite the > program's uncertain future. Many, however, including > Florida, are hedging their bets. What began as > campaigns to land VentureStar have broadened into > more generic efforts to bring home any next-generation > vehicle. > > "Whether VentureStar goes the course or we end up > with a new vehicle remains to be seen," said Edward > O'Connor, executive director of Spaceport Florida > Authority. "VentureStar was always considered by us to > be a very aggressive program." > > Part of that aggressive program calls for flight testing > cutting-edge technologies on X-33 once deemed critical > to making VentureStar work: lightweight fuel tanks made > of a graphite composite material, advanced rocket > engines and new metallic heat tiles designed to protect > the ship during its fiery return through Earth's > atmosphere. The tiles were cleared for flight last year. > > The liquid-hydrogen fuel tanks originally were > considered the breakthrough the project hinged on, > crucial to making VentureStar light enough to reach orbit > as a single-stage rocket. They have proved to be the > biggest headache. > > After months of delays caused by manufacturing > problems, one of X-33's fuel tanks was flown to > NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama last > April for checkout. On Nov. 3, the tank's outer skin > fractured and split open along a seam during testing. > X-33's long-delayed first flight -- scheduled for this >July > -- was postponed again, probably until 2002. > > Program managers have begun piecing together a > recovery plan in recent weeks to cope with the setback. > But the failure investigation has dragged on for months > amid concerns by NASA administrator Dan Goldin that > the report was being rushed. The latest release date is > near the end of March. > > Preliminary findings are being kept under wraps. But > NASA sources told The Orlando Sentinel the tank > failure was caused by a combination of forces: pressure > applied to the tank's exterior, internal fuel pressure >and a > phenomenon known as cryopumping. > > The tanks are made of several layers bonded together > like a sandwich. Engineers theorize that during the test, > air was drawn through permeable parts of the skin and > collected between layers. That air then was liquefied by > super-cold temperatures needed to keep the hydrogen > fuel in a liquid state. When the tank warmed after being > drained of fuel at the test's conclusion, the trapped liquid > air boiled off, creating pressure between the layers. > > In addition, more than a dozen pneumatic jacks applied > pressure to the outside of the tank to simulate loads from > an adjacent liquid oxygen tank. Plus, the inside of the > tank was pressurized with 29,000 gallons of frigid liquid > hydrogen. The tank's composite material couldn't handle > all the stresses. > > Lockheed Martin already has redesigned VentureStar to > use heavier but proven aluminum tanks because of > X-33's problems and the lack of facilities large enough > to build a full-scale composite tank. Besides being less > risky, the switch to aluminum could have other > advantages. > > Aluminum tanks could be built to more precisely fill the > spacecraft's interior volume, meaning less wasted space > and more room for fuel. And protective heat tiles could > be bonded directly to the aluminum, reducing weight. > The result could be enough weight savings to still allow >a > single-stage spacecraft. > > Lockheed Martin has not announced a move to > aluminum tanks on X-33 yet, although a source close to > the project told the Sentinel the switch was imminent. > Mark Messick, composite structures manager for tank > subcontractor Alliant Techsystems, said no final decision > has been made. He remains optimistic a composite-tank > design could work. > > "I think the lessons learned can get us there," Messick > said. > > While project managers grapple with the tank problem, > tests on another critical system, X-33's rocket engines, > have gone remarkably well. Unlike standard engines that > direct thrust with bell-shaped nozzles, X-33's engines > feature two rows of small combustion chambers that fire > down the sides of a V-shaped ramp or spike. > > A test aerospike engine has been fired 10 times so far >at > NASA's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. A > software glitch shut down a March 9 firing early, but > other tests have been mostly trouble-free. After at least > five more firings of the experimental engine, technicians > plan to mate X-33's two flight engines and begin testing > them around July. > > "Everybody is not just pleasantly surprised, but it's > beyond our wildest expectations," said Pat Mooney, > X-33's project manager at Stennis. > > Despite good news on the engines, Lockheed Martin > officials are concerned X-33 still won't eliminate enough > technical risk to justify sinking an estimated $7.2 billion > of company funds into a fleet of VentureStars. > Discussions are under way on a possible X-33B project > to serve as a stepping stone. > > Under the plan, X-33 would be upgraded after it > completes its test-flight program. Possible add-ons > include new ramps for the aerospike engines, improved > computer systems, lighter-weight heat shielding and > more sophisticated monitoring of the spacecraft's > systems. > > The company would finance X-33B work through a > NASA initiative aimed at developing new technologies > for next-generation vehicles. NASA plans to spend $4.5 > billion on the program during the next five years, > although Goldin told Congress last week that the > initiative would be one of the first things scaled back >if > the space agency's budget is cut. > > There are far more immediate financial worries for > X-33, however. NASA already has paid Lockheed > Martin almost 90 percent of the contract's money. No > new funds are earmarked in NASA's proposed 2001 > budget. > > Lockheed Martin and its industry partners have kicked > in $365 million and are committed to spending $50 > million more this year and an additional $50 million in > 2001 -- if progress justifies it. But under the terms of >the > X-33 agreement, the company can walk away at any > time. > > To cover the expense of building aluminum fuel tanks, > Lockheed Martin reportedly has asked NASA to > advance the company the remaining $115 million in the > contract. But about $75 million is award money tied to > successful completion of up to 15 suborbital test flights, > technology demonstrations and quick launch > turnarounds. > > "From what I understand, there have been some friendly > discussions on Capitol Hill about that as long as > Lockheed Martin is willing to do its share," said Robert > Walker, a former chairman of the House science > committee who now lobbies Congress on behalf of > VentureStar. > > Not everyone has signed on, however. Some in > Congress are still steamed by a report from the General > Accounting Office last August that found X-33 was over > budget, behind schedule and wouldn't meet its original > goals. Others want to see progress before shelling out > more taxpayer dollars. > > "The time has come that we don't spend any more > money on this project until Lockheed Martin has proved > the project can be successful," said Dana Rohrabacher, > R-Calif., the influential chairman of the House's space > subcommittee. "Lockheed Martin is a profitable > company. It obviously had confidence it could do what it > claimed it could do. It's now time for it to prove to us > that it can." > > Election-year politics also could factor into the debate. > Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic presidential > nominee, has been closely associated with X-33 from > the start. Gore participated in the selection process and > personally announced the contract award in 1996. > > As a result, the Clinton administration and NASA are > expected to step up efforts to keep the project on track. > But the Republican-controlled Congress could oppose > any deals until after the November election to make the > troubled program a campaign issue. > > That effort may already be under way. > > "This is Al Gore's baby, and it's not flying," Rohrabacher > said. "He's the one who unveiled it. He's the one who > selected it. He's the one who dominated the process, > and it doesn't work." > > "Gore's eccentricities in space will certainly be an issue." > > Posted Mar 18 2000 9:45PM --part1_7a.2eb0b08.2608617a_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-za04.mx.aol.com (rly-za04.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.100]) by air-za04.mail.aol.com (v70.19) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:29:41 -0500 Received: from gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com (gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com [205.175.225.1]) by rly-za04.mx.aol.com (v70.20) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:29:10 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com; id KAA26556; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:29:10 -0600 (CST) Received: from mnpcl3.collins.rockwell.com(131.198.67.152) by gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com via smap (V4.2) id xma026402; Mon, 20 Mar 00 10:28:17 -0600 Received: from crnotes.collins.rockwell.com (crnotes [131.198.213.32]) by mnpcl3.collins.rockwell.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA21847 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:28:16 -0600 (CST) Received: by crnotes.collins.rockwell.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id 862568A8.005A6FB3 ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:27:48 -0600 X-Lotus-FromDomain: ROCKWELL From: "Kelly G Starks" Sender: "Kelly G Starks" To: kellyst@aol.com Message-ID: <862568A8.005A6ABB.00@crnotes.collins.rockwell.com> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:22:10 -0600 Subject: Articale on the status of the X-33 program. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Articale on the status of the X-33 program. Aerospike engines are working great. Heat tiles were certified a year ago. BUT the composite hydrogen tank is considered a near write off. Without the composite tank VentureStar was thought to be impractical. Lockheed now thinks it might be doable with Aluminum, but some in congress are geting upset. Course its Gores baby, so expect the Whitehouse tand dems to defend it. ;/ http://www.orlandosentinel.com/automagic/news/2000-03-19/NWSSPACE19031900.html Will it fly? A drawing shows how the X-33 would look in flight. LOCKHEED MARTIN Rocket ship of future still grounded by problems Michael Cabbage Sentinel Space Editor Published in The Orlando Sentinel on March 19, 2000 CAPE CANAVERAL -- Nobody thought building the prototype for a revolutionary new spaceship was going to be easy. But few suspected that four years after winning a $941 million contract from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lockheed Martin's troubled X-33 project might still be another two years from flying. In fact, there is growing concern about whether the wedge-shaped experimental craft will ever fly. A new technology once billed as the key to the ambitious program is on the verge of being abandoned. The project is running out of money. And additional government funds could be delayed by election-year politics. As a result, the dream seems more distant than ever that X-33 might evolve into VentureStar -- a full-scale reusable vehicle designed to take off and land similar to the space shuttle, but without jettisoning spent boosters or fuel tanks. Touted as a potential replacement for the shuttle, a privately owned VentureStar fleet could cut current launch costs up to 90 percent. That's if it gets built. Fifteen states continue to jockey for two planned VentureStar launch and landing sites despite the program's uncertain future. Many, however, including Florida, are hedging their bets. What began as campaigns to land VentureStar have broadened into more generic efforts to bring home any next-generation vehicle. "Whether VentureStar goes the course or we end up with a new vehicle remains to be seen," said Edward O'Connor, executive director of Spaceport Florida Authority. "VentureStar was always considered by us to be a very aggressive program." Part of that aggressive program calls for flight testing cutting-edge technologies on X-33 once deemed critical to making VentureStar work: lightweight fuel tanks made of a graphite composite material, advanced rocket engines and new metallic heat tiles designed to protect the ship during its fiery return through Earth's atmosphere. The tiles were cleared for flight last year. The liquid-hydrogen fuel tanks originally were considered the breakthrough the project hinged on, crucial to making VentureStar light enough to reach orbit as a single-stage rocket. They have proved to be the biggest headache. After months of delays caused by manufacturing problems, one of X-33's fuel tanks was flown to NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama last April for checkout. On Nov. 3, the tank's outer skin fractured and split open along a seam during testing. X-33's long-delayed first flight -- scheduled for this July -- was postponed again, probably until 2002. Program managers have begun piecing together a recovery plan in recent weeks to cope with the setback. But the failure investigation has dragged on for months amid concerns by NASA administrator Dan Goldin that the report was being rushed. The latest release date is near the end of March. Preliminary findings are being kept under wraps. But NASA sources told The Orlando Sentinel the tank failure was caused by a combination of forces: pressure applied to the tank's exterior, internal fuel pressure and a phenomenon known as cryopumping. The tanks are made of several layers bonded together like a sandwich. Engineers theorize that during the test, air was drawn through permeable parts of the skin and collected between layers. That air then was liquefied by super-cold temperatures needed to keep the hydrogen fuel in a liquid state. When the tank warmed after being drained of fuel at the test's conclusion, the trapped liquid air boiled off, creating pressure between the layers. In addition, more than a dozen pneumatic jacks applied pressure to the outside of the tank to simulate loads from an adjacent liquid oxygen tank. Plus, the inside of the tank was pressurized with 29,000 gallons of frigid liquid hydrogen. The tank's composite material couldn't handle all the stresses. Lockheed Martin already has redesigned VentureStar to use heavier but proven aluminum tanks because of X-33's problems and the lack of facilities large enough to build a full-scale composite tank. Besides being less risky, the switch to aluminum could have other advantages. Aluminum tanks could be built to more precisely fill the spacecraft's interior volume, meaning less wasted space and more room for fuel. And protective heat tiles could be bonded directly to the aluminum, reducing weight. The result could be enough weight savings to still allow a single-stage spacecraft. Lockheed Martin has not announced a move to aluminum tanks on X-33 yet, although a source close to the project told the Sentinel the switch was imminent. Mark Messick, composite structures manager for tank subcontractor Alliant Techsystems, said no final decision has been made. He remains optimistic a composite-tank design could work. "I think the lessons learned can get us there," Messick said. While project managers grapple with the tank problem, tests on another critical system, X-33's rocket engines, have gone remarkably well. Unlike standard engines that direct thrust with bell-shaped nozzles, X-33's engines feature two rows of small combustion chambers that fire down the sides of a V-shaped ramp or spike. A test aerospike engine has been fired 10 times so far at NASA's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. A software glitch shut down a March 9 firing early, but other tests have been mostly trouble-free. After at least five more firings of the experimental engine, technicians plan to mate X-33's two flight engines and begin testing them around July. "Everybody is not just pleasantly surprised, but it's beyond our wildest expectations," said Pat Mooney, X-33's project manager at Stennis. Despite good news on the engines, Lockheed Martin officials are concerned X-33 still won't eliminate enough technical risk to justify sinking an estimated $7.2 billion of company funds into a fleet of VentureStars. Discussions are under way on a possible X-33B project to serve as a stepping stone. Under the plan, X-33 would be upgraded after it completes its test-flight program. Possible add-ons include new ramps for the aerospike engines, improved computer systems, lighter-weight heat shielding and more sophisticated monitoring of the spacecraft's systems. The company would finance X-33B work through a NASA initiative aimed at developing new technologies for next-generation vehicles. NASA plans to spend $4.5 billion on the program during the next five years, although Goldin told Congress last week that the initiative would be one of the first things scaled back if the space agency's budget is cut. There are far more immediate financial worries for X-33, however. NASA already has paid Lockheed Martin almost 90 percent of the contract's money. No new funds are earmarked in NASA's proposed 2001 budget. Lockheed Martin and its industry partners have kicked in $365 million and are committed to spending $50 million more this year and an additional $50 million in 2001 -- if progress justifies it. But under the terms of the X-33 agreement, the company can walk away at any time. To cover the expense of building aluminum fuel tanks, Lockheed Martin reportedly has asked NASA to advance the company the remaining $115 million in the contract. But about $75 million is award money tied to successful completion of up to 15 suborbital test flights, technology demonstrations and quick launch turnarounds. "From what I understand, there have been some friendly discussions on Capitol Hill about that as long as Lockheed Martin is willing to do its share," said Robert Walker, a former chairman of the House science committee who now lobbies Congress on behalf of VentureStar. Not everyone has signed on, however. Some in Congress are still steamed by a report from the General Accounting Office last August that found X-33 was over budget, behind schedule and wouldn't meet its original goals. Others want to see progress before shelling out more taxpayer dollars. "The time has come that we don't spend any more money on this project until Lockheed Martin has proved the project can be successful," said Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., the influential chairman of the House's space subcommittee. "Lockheed Martin is a profitable company. It obviously had confidence it could do what it claimed it could do. It's now time for it to prove to us that it can." Election-year politics also could factor into the debate. Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee, has been closely associated with X-33 from the start. Gore participated in the selection process and personally announced the contract award in 1996. As a result, the Clinton administration and NASA are expected to step up efforts to keep the project on track. But the Republican-controlled Congress could oppose any deals until after the November election to make the troubled program a campaign issue. That effort may already be under way. "This is Al Gore's baby, and it's not flying," Rohrabacher said. "He's the one who unveiled it. He's the one who selected it. He's the one who dominated the process, and it doesn't work." "Gore's eccentricities in space will certainly be an issue." Posted Mar 18 2000 9:45PM --part1_7a.2eb0b08.2608617a_boundary-- From VM Tue Mar 21 09:28:51 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["11417" "Tuesday" "21" "March" "2000" "00:24:15" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "346" "starship-design: Fwd: Iridium Shutdown" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 11417 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA05034 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:25:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA05026 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:25:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 4.1a.162bea7 (3934); Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:24:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1a.162bea7.2608617f@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_1a.162bea7.2608617f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Fwd: Iridium Shutdown Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:24:15 EST --part1_1a.162bea7.2608617f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/20/00 10:47:54 AM, kgstarks@crnotes.collins.rockwell.com writes: > > >Ha, the Iridium global sat cellphone service is dead Jim. Service is officially >going to be terminated. No acceptable bider came forth to get it out of >bankruptcy. So they are terminating service and are going to start de-orbiting >the sats. > >Pity. First to market, and died. Guess the competitors had a better angle. > I >heard that they were having tech screw-ups. The first few sats were DOA >on >orbit. > >Kelly > > >http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000317/tc/telecoms_iridium_13.html > > >Iridium Shutdown Set; No White Knight Emerges > > By Mark Weinraub > > NEW YORK (Reuters) - Iridium World Communications Ltd. >has > failed to attract a qualified, last-ditch offer to rescue >it >from liquidation > and now will begin pulling its satellites out of orbit, >letting >billions of > dollars worth of space-age communications gear burn up >in the > atmosphere. > > Iridium said in a statement it would cut off its commercial >service at > 11:59 p.m. (04:59 GMT) on Friday. > > ``No bid was received which was a qualified bid,'' Iridium attorney William >Perlstein told the > U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan on Friday afternoon. > > Perlstein told the court the company had been in discussions with three >bidding > groups > through Thursday, but no deal could be reached that met its requirements. >He >did not > identify the potential buyers. > > ``I am deeply saddened by this outcome,'' Iridium chief operating officer >Randy > Brouckman > said in a statement. ``I particularly regret the impact this will have >on our >customers. Iridium > achieved significant milestones, and I want to thank the more than 160 >countries that > licensed the service.'' > > The failure to find a buyer essentially marked the end of an ambitious, >$5 >billion project to > provide telephone service to any spot on the globe through a system of >66 >low-earth-orbit > satellites. > > ``There was no misunderstanding that this was it in the absence of a qualified >bid,'' Perlstein > said. > > After what seemed a promising launch, Iridium fell into bankruptcy protection >in August > 1999 as sales of its phones and service proved hugely disappointing. Critics >said the service > and equipment were too costly, the phones were too bulky and the service >was >too erratic. > > A $600 million plan by cellular phone pioneer Craig McCaw to rescue the >company > fell > apart earlier this month when McCaw and his investment group backed out >of the >deal. > > Following the pullout, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District >of >New York > approved an 11-day, $3 million plan to fund operations while Iridium conducted >a last-ditch > search for a buyer. > > On Friday, Judge Arthur Gonzalez approved a liquidation budget of $8.3 >million >to cover > expenses through April 30 as Iridium starts the process of bringing the >satellites out of orbit > and selling off the company's remaining assets. > > An attorney for telecommunications equipment maker Motorola Corp. (NYSE:MOT >- > news), which conceived of, built, and has been operating the satellites, >told >the court it > would begin the de-orbiting plan in about a week. > > The plan, which will result in the satellites literally burning up as >they are >pulled from orbit, > needs to be coordinated with several U.S. government agencies. Motorola >said it > would > take about eight to nine months to bring all the satellites into lower >orbit, >and a total of about > one to two years for them to burn up in the atmosphere. > > It will cost between $30 million and $50 million to bring the satellites >down, >Perlstein said. > > Motorola said in a statement it will maintain the system while the de-orbiting >plan was > finalized. The company said it would work with subscribers to provide >alternative > communications. > > ``Motorola is extremely disappointed that Iridium LLC has not succeeded >in its >effort to > emerge from voluntary bankruptcy,'' Motorola. ``Motorola and other Iridium >investors have > worked very hard to support Iridium LLC's efforts to reorganize and continue >operating the > business. Unfortunately, that has not happened.'' > > Perlstein said a qualified bid for Iridium would have included a $10 million >cash deposit, as > well as funds to continue Iridium's operations and assume Motorola's >responsibilities for the > satellites. > > He added that the company had been in discussions with NASA for the U.S. >space >agency > to take control of the satellites, but that Iridium had been informed >shortly >before the court > hearing that the agency did not have the budget for such a plan. > > Motorola's shares closed down 1 11/16 at 149 5/16 on Friday on the New >York >Stock > Exchange. The Schaumburg, Ill.,-based company has taken more than $2.0 >billion >in > charges related to Iridium. --part1_1a.162bea7.2608617f_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-yb03.mx.aol.com (rly-yb03.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.3]) by air-yb05.mail.aol.com (v70.19) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:47:53 -0500 Received: from gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com (gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com [205.175.225.1]) by rly-yb03.mx.aol.com (v70.20) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:47:16 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com; id KAA01966; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:47:11 -0600 (CST) Received: from mnpcl3.collins.rockwell.com(131.198.67.152) by gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com via smap (V4.2) id xma001772; Mon, 20 Mar 00 10:46:46 -0600 Received: from crnotes.collins.rockwell.com (crnotes [131.198.213.32]) by mnpcl3.collins.rockwell.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA28361 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:46:40 -0600 (CST) Received: by crnotes.collins.rockwell.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id 862568A8.005C221A ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:46:20 -0600 X-Lotus-FromDomain: ROCKWELL From: "Kelly G Starks" Sender: "Kelly G Starks" To: kellyst@aol.com Message-ID: <862568A8.005C1F31.00@crnotes.collins.rockwell.com> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:40:50 -0600 Subject: Iridium Shutdown Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ha, the Iridium global sat cellphone service is dead Jim. Service is officially going to be terminated. No acceptable bider came forth to get it out of bankruptcy. So they are terminating service and are going to start de-orbiting the sats. Pity. First to market, and died. Guess the competitors had a better angle. I heard that they were having tech screw-ups. The first few sats were DOA on orbit. Kelly http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000317/tc/telecoms_iridium_13.html Iridium Shutdown Set; No White Knight Emerges By Mark Weinraub NEW YORK (Reuters) - Iridium World Communications Ltd. has failed to attract a qualified, last-ditch offer to rescue it from liquidation and now will begin pulling its satellites out of orbit, letting billions of dollars worth of space-age communications gear burn up in the atmosphere. Iridium said in a statement it would cut off its commercial service at 11:59 p.m. (04:59 GMT) on Friday. ``No bid was received which was a qualified bid,'' Iridium attorney William Perlstein told the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan on Friday afternoon. Perlstein told the court the company had been in discussions with three bidding groups through Thursday, but no deal could be reached that met its requirements. He did not identify the potential buyers. ``I am deeply saddened by this outcome,'' Iridium chief operating officer Randy Brouckman said in a statement. ``I particularly regret the impact this will have on our customers. Iridium achieved significant milestones, and I want to thank the more than 160 countries that licensed the service.'' The failure to find a buyer essentially marked the end of an ambitious, $5 billion project to provide telephone service to any spot on the globe through a system of 66 low-earth-orbit satellites. ``There was no misunderstanding that this was it in the absence of a qualified bid,'' Perlstein said. After what seemed a promising launch, Iridium fell into bankruptcy protection in August 1999 as sales of its phones and service proved hugely disappointing. Critics said the service and equipment were too costly, the phones were too bulky and the service was too erratic. A $600 million plan by cellular phone pioneer Craig McCaw to rescue the company fell apart earlier this month when McCaw and his investment group backed out of the deal. Following the pullout, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved an 11-day, $3 million plan to fund operations while Iridium conducted a last-ditch search for a buyer. On Friday, Judge Arthur Gonzalez approved a liquidation budget of $8.3 million to cover expenses through April 30 as Iridium starts the process of bringing the satellites out of orbit and selling off the company's remaining assets. An attorney for telecommunications equipment maker Motorola Corp. (NYSE:MOT - news), which conceived of, built, and has been operating the satellites, told the court it would begin the de-orbiting plan in about a week. The plan, which will result in the satellites literally burning up as they are pulled from orbit, needs to be coordinated with several U.S. government agencies. Motorola said it would take about eight to nine months to bring all the satellites into lower orbit, and a total of about one to two years for them to burn up in the atmosphere. It will cost between $30 million and $50 million to bring the satellites down, Perlstein said. Motorola said in a statement it will maintain the system while the de-orbiting plan was finalized. The company said it would work with subscribers to provide alternative communications. ``Motorola is extremely disappointed that Iridium LLC has not succeeded in its effort to emerge from voluntary bankruptcy,'' Motorola. ``Motorola and other Iridium investors have worked very hard to support Iridium LLC's efforts to reorganize and continue operating the business. Unfortunately, that has not happened.'' Perlstein said a qualified bid for Iridium would have included a $10 million cash deposit, as well as funds to continue Iridium's operations and assume Motorola's responsibilities for the satellites. He added that the company had been in discussions with NASA for the U.S. space agency to take control of the satellites, but that Iridium had been informed shortly before the court hearing that the agency did not have the budget for such a plan. Motorola's shares closed down 1 11/16 at 149 5/16 on Friday on the New York Stock Exchange. The Schaumburg, Ill.,-based company has taken more than $2.0 billion in charges related to Iridium. --part1_1a.162bea7.2608617f_boundary-- From VM Tue Mar 21 09:28:51 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2801" "Tuesday" "21" "March" "2000" "00:24:22" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "83" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2801 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA05063 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:25:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA05055 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:25:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 4.d3.2cb424c (3934); Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:24:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, KellySt@aol.com, johnbean@ebard.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:24:22 EST In a message dated 3/20/00 4:21:45 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >Kelly, > >> well, I think it was more like 40. ;) But it does blow the >> assumptions of >> needing a full eco/fam system all the time. > >You don't really think I bothered to go back and look it up do you? Course not - neather did I. ;) >> Given any near future trip would take decades of ship time, >> is a ship that >> small practical? Could that few people do any real survey of >> a star system? >> > >Well, I was assuming that IF we went at all, it would be possible to go >CLOSE to c. Given that, and dilation effects, I think trips lasting a few >years (ship time) are feasible. Depending on the dilation coefficient, >that >could get us out to as far as several hundred light years within a few >centuries without ever needing FTL. > >Of course, if we change the assumptions to something like .3 c, you are >right. Frankly were not much closer to near light speed travel, then FTl travel. No idea how to generae that much power, or hold a ship together at it. Maser sails could be pushed up that fast, but debres would rip them apart, and no way to slow them down. We'ld never bother with trips that would take centuries. Its just rediculas to send a ship out that long. It couldn't possibly get there before more advanced ships built later ran ahead of it. >> Why send separte frieghters? Its easier and simpler to >> maintain, to just >> integrate the stuff in one ship. >> >> I used to like the redundancy of multiple shipsm but given >> the size one ship >> would need to be, multiples started sounding crazy. > >I was expanding upon the carrier group resupply paradigm that was mentioned >earlier. If the freighters are capable of higher velocities than the >expedition, or are launched FIRST, then it might make things easier. No >sense shutting out options unnecessarily. Given the speeds and distences, its pretty hard to do auto intersepts. And since you have to wind up at the same speeds, you might as well use the same ship. Can't see a way around that. > >> Hum? > >Ho... > >I was alluding to refinement of existing technology leading to greater >levels of performance, as in first generation makes it to 0.3 c, second >generation can reach 0.6 c, third generation can reach 0.9 c, etc. No REAL >major discovery, just refinement of the same design. That is a brute force >approach, as opposed to a new design, such as inertial nullifiers allowing >a >jump from 0.3 c to 0.999999 c overnight. But the same techs can't get you faster. Fusion systems, or things like fuel sail, would require a exponential fuel growth. To get past .3 or .4 you need a whole concept for tech. Something like zero-point energy, mass/inertia alterratin - something wild. > >Lee Kelly From VM Tue Mar 21 09:28:51 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["274" "Tuesday" "21" "March" "2000" "00:24:30" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "13" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 274 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA05078 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:25:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA05068 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:25:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.9b.2d061db (3934); Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:24:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9b.2d061db.2608618e@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: STAR1SHIP@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:24:30 EST In a message dated 3/20/00 5:04:52 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: > >Why not ... stars don't move that fast, just remember to break early. > >Star !!! Screeech ... < grin > That could be an ebarasing crash. "What do you mean you didn't see the star!!??!!" ;) From VM Tue Mar 21 09:28:51 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1771" "Tuesday" "21" "March" "2000" "00:24:25" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "56" "Re: RE: RE: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1771 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA05292 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:27:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA05286 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:26:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 4.e4.2c39022 (3934); Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:24:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, KellySt@aol.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:24:25 EST In a message dated 3/20/00 4:21:26 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >Kelly, > >> >Space has almost no need for fusion power expect for >> spacecraft propulsion. >> >Solar power is easier, freely available and far cheaper. >> >> Solar power is only avalible in the inner solar system. Even >> at Mars its >> chancy. You want to go past that you need nukes or fusion, >> and nukes are a >> political no-no. > >I don't have the figures to back this up, but I would think even at the >orbit of Mars there would still be enough solar radiation for solar power, >perhaps not much beyond that. I remember it was geting to be a serious problem with the recent Mars probes. Thats why the Rovers and such died so rapidly. The old nuclear Mars probes kept going for years. The new ones only lasted a couple weeks. >As far as the political realities of fission >versus fusion, I think a space based civilization might have a litter >different take on the realities than us ground pounders who are worried >about contaminating our biosphere - which is not an issue there. >Fissionables and fusionables are both in good supply in the asteroids... Irrelavent. It'll be most of a century before we get a "space based civilizatoin", and we won't be abl;e to build it without high power systems like fusin or fision. >> To a remote colony where they will be highly dependant on >> Earth sent suplies?! > >There won't BE any remote colonies dependent upon Earth for resupply. If >they aren't self sufficient, they will die. (Science and research bases >are >not colonies.) Agreed, but then their won't be any remote colonies. >BTW, what happened to your spelling? It has recently gotten MUCH >better... I'm sorry, it was an accident, really! ;) > >Lee Kelly From VM Tue Mar 21 09:28:51 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1715" "Monday" "20" "March" "2000" "22:16:53" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "32" "Re: RE: RE: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1715 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14039 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:16:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA14034 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:16:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2L6Gn328935 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:16:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2L6H3016961; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:17:03 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14551.5078.244311.140178@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:16:53 -0800 (PST) KellySt@aol.com writes: > >I don't have the figures to back this up, but I would think even at the > >orbit of Mars there would still be enough solar radiation for solar power, > >perhaps not much beyond that. > > I remember it was geting to be a serious problem with the recent Mars probes. > Thats why the Rovers and such died so rapidly. The old nuclear Mars probes > kept going for years. The new ones only lasted a couple weeks. The Sojourner rover was still operating when the lander stopped communicating after 80-some days of operation. The original mission plan assumed that the lander would operate for only 30 days and the rover only 7. Both used solar power to recharge batteries to allow some overnight operations; while there's no definitive evidence to say exactly why the lander failed, electronics failure due to thermal cycling or battery failure after so many daily charge/discharge cycles are possibilities. However, it was possible to operate both the lander and the rover from solar power alone without any battery support at all, and I believe the rover operated that way later in the mission. The Pathfinder mission was intentionally built cheap; its limitations were not the result of using solar power instead of nuclear. Mars Global Surveyor is completely solar-powered and has been operating in Mars orbit for two and a half years, and should operate for quite a while more. The Cassini web site has a pretty nice presentation on why they couldn't use solar power for Cassini (to answer the anti-nuclear activists who spread untenable scare scenarios about a Cassini launch failure or Earth impact during its swingby): http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/cassini/rtg/solar.htm From VM Tue Mar 21 09:28:51 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1503" "Monday" "20" "March" "2000" "23:39:36" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "29" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1503 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18134 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:36:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA18119 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:35:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin43.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.43]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA27123 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 23:30:05 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38D71928.B1FB2451@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <14551.5078.244311.140178@localhost.efn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 23:39:36 -0700 Steve VanDevender wrote: > > KellySt@aol.com writes: > > >I don't have the figures to back this up, but I would think even at the > > >orbit of Mars there would still be enough solar radiation for solar power, > > >perhaps not much beyond that. > > > > I remember it was geting to be a serious problem with the recent Mars probes. > > Thats why the Rovers and such died so rapidly. The old nuclear Mars probes > > kept going for years. The new ones only lasted a couple weeks. > > The Sojourner rover was still operating when the lander stopped > communicating after 80-some days of operation. The original mission > plan assumed that the lander would operate for only 30 days and the > rover only 7. Both used solar power to recharge batteries to allow some > overnight operations; while there's no definitive evidence to say > exactly why the lander failed, electronics failure due to thermal > cycling or battery failure after so many daily charge/discharge cycles > are possibilities. However, it was possible to operate both the lander > and the rover from solar power alone without any battery support at all, > and I believe the rover operated that way later in the mission. I thought the problem, is was that batteries and other equipment, since it was only ment for 30 days, could not survive the real cold after 80 days. Also a design flaw in the software may also have been a factor. The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Tue Mar 21 09:28:51 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["872" "Monday" "20" "March" "2000" "22:44:28" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "17" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 872 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18833 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:44:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA18817 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:44:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2L6iC304457 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:44:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2L6iVn17100; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:44:31 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14551.6732.482944.559593@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <38D71928.B1FB2451@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <14551.5078.244311.140178@localhost.efn.org> <38D71928.B1FB2451@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:44:28 -0800 (PST) Ben Franchuk writes: > I thought the problem, is was that batteries and other equipment, > since it was only ment for 30 days, could not survive the real cold > after 80 days. Also a design flaw in the software may also have been > a factor. As I heard it explained the deep cold was not so much a problem as extreme thermal cycling, something like 60 degrees C variation between day and night. The only major software problem I heard of caused spontaneous reboots of the lander due to a somewhat esoteric problem called "priority inversion", but was solved fairly early in the mission. Most major software problems would have caused the lander to enter a predictable safe mode, but what appeared to happen was that the lander stopped talking to Earth, briefly made minimal response to Earth commands a few days later, and then never communicated with Earth again. From VM Wed Mar 22 09:34:49 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5403" "Tuesday" "21" "March" "2000" "22:08:52" "-0500" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "117" "starship-design: [Fwd: JPL Awards Contracts for Planet-Hunting Mission Studies]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5403 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2M3eJt04076 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 19:40:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.50]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2M3eIw04071 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 19:40:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.97.211]) by mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000322031044.DBUX25500.mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 03:10:44 +0000 Message-ID: <38D83944.8CD3E742@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship Subject: starship-design: [Fwd: JPL Awards Contracts for Planet-Hunting Mission Studies] Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 22:08:52 -0500 For those of you who may not have seen this yet . . . JPLNews@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: > MEDIA RELATIONS OFFICE > JET PROPULSION LABORATORY > CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY > NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION > PASADENA, CALIF. 91109 TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011 > http://www.jpl.nasa.gov > > Contact: Michelle Viotti (818) 354-8774 > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 21, 2000 > > JPL AWARDS CONTRACTS FOR PLANET-HUNTING MISSION STUDIES > > Creative sparks are flying as four contract-winning teams > begin the quest to design Terrestrial Planet Finder, an > ambitious mission in NASA's Origins Program that will look for > possible life-supporting planets around other stars. > > Through a three-month competitive process, the Jet > Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., selected the industrial- > academic teams, which will spend the next two years developing > mission concepts for Terrestrial Planet Finder. The teams are > led by Ball Aerospace of Boulder, Colo.; Lockheed Martin Space > Systems of Sunnyvale, Calif.; TRW of Redondo Beach, Calif.; and > SVS, Inc. of Albuquerque, N.M. About 75 scientists from 30 > universities and research institutions, 16 industrial firms, and > two NASA centers are represented on the teams. > > "We've succeeded in our goal of engaging some of the best > minds in the world," said Dr. Firouz Naderi, Origins Program > Manager and Terrestrial Planet Finder project manager at JPL. > "Now their task is to cover the waterfront on all feasible > mission concepts for the Terrestrial Planet Finder, bringing us > one step closer to finding out whether life exists elsewhere in > the universe." > > Finding habitable, Earth-like planets doesn't come easy. > "The challenge is like trying to locate a firefly next to the > beam of a brilliant searchlight," said Terrestrial Planet > Finder Project Scientist Dr. Charles A. Beichman of JPL. > > The solution depends on developing a whole suite of > challenging technologies, including those necessary to fly > several 3.5 meter (137-inch) telescopes in a formation so precise > that we will know their positions to a fraction of a centimeter, > even though the space between them will span a few football > fields. The mission's success will also depend on the ability to > cancel out a star's glare so that a planet one million-times > fainter can be seen, and will require instruments so sensitive > that they can identify the presence of life-sustaining chemicals > on a planet up to 50 light years away from Earth. > > "We will be looking for warm, water-bearing planets like > Earth, and even for signs of primitive life," said Beichman. "To > get there, Terrestrial Planet Finder will be built on the > technological shoulders of earlier Origins missions, but several > leaps in innovation will still be required." > > That's why the team at JPL decided to establish an > innovative approach to mission design and planning. To avoid > basing Planet Finder's design on current and potentially > "conventional" thinking, JPL threw open the doors to invention by > requesting proposals that would reflect the most diverse set of > feasible and affordable mission architectures. > > "We didn't want the design teams to be constrained by > existing concepts or so-called 'right answers,'" said Naderi. > "This way we'll have the broadest set of concepts to choose from > and won't miss out on any opportunity that's too good to pass > up." > > In the first, eight-month phase of the study, the four > contract teams will be busy brainstorming options for detecting > and characterizing far-away planets. In December 2000, the best > two architectures from each team will be selected for further > study in the planned, 11-month Phase 2 study, ending in November > 2001. > > Terrestrial Planet Finder is planned to launch in 2012. > Over a five-year period, it will take a look at 250 stars to > determine which ones may have orbiting, life-sustaining planets. > The mission will also advance our understanding of how planets > and their parent stars form by making thousands of images, all > with a sharpness 10 to 100 times better than those of the Hubble > Space Telescope. More information about Terrestrial Planet > Finder can be found at: http://tpf.jpl.nasa.gov . > > The Origins Program seeks to understand our cosmic roots by > detailing how galaxies, stars, planets, and the chemicals > necessary for life formed and developed in the universe. Its > other primary goal is to search for the presence of life on > distant worlds, answering the question "Are we alone?" Details > about the Origins Program can be found at: > http://origins.jpl.nasa.gov . > > JPL manages both Terrestrial Planet Finder and the Origins > Program on behalf of NASA's Office of Space Science, Washington, > D.C. JPL is a division of the California Institute of Technology > in Pasadena. > > ##### > > #2000-026 > 03/21/2000 MV > --------------------------------------------------------------- > You are subscribed to JPL's news mailing list. To unsubscribe, > please send an e-mail to JPLNews@jpl.nasa.gov and in the body > of the message include the following line. > > unsubscribe news > > Please do not reply to this e-mail. > For help, send a message to listmaster@www.jpl.nasa.gov. From VM Wed Mar 22 11:23:07 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["256" "Wednesday" "22" "March" "2000" "13:15:56" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "9" "RE: starship-design: [Fwd: JPL Awards Contracts for Planet-Hunting Mission Studies]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 256 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2MJJqB10087 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:19:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2MJJow10077 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:19:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p475.gnt.com [204.49.91.91]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id NAA16525; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:19:42 -0600 Message-ID: <001601bf9433$79066b50$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <38D83944.8CD3E742@worldnet.att.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Curtis Manges'" , "'starship'" Subject: RE: starship-design: [Fwd: JPL Awards Contracts for Planet-Hunting Mission Studies] Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:15:56 -0600 Thanks Curtis, That is good to know. To paraphrase NASA's own words, the discovery of life or even potentially life bearing planets around another star would be the single biggest kick in the pants for an interstellar mission that will ever happen. Lee From VM Thu Mar 23 10:11:51 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2653" "Wednesday" "22" "March" "2000" "22:50:48" "-0500" "John Bean" "johnbean@ebard.com" nil "54" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2653 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2N3pFE20996 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:51:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.valueweb.net (root@smtp.valueweb.net [207.36.123.48]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2N3pDw20991 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:51:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from client-114-129.bellatlantic.net ([151.198.114.129]:3848 "EHLO [151.198.114.129]") by smtp.valueweb.net with ESMTP id ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 22:50:48 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: jb01@pop.ebard.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <38D684CA.33E3A13E@worldnet.att.net> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: John Bean From: John Bean Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 22:50:48 -0500 Curits, That's the idea. The more generic the better as long as the cost is low enough, and the cost I quoted is do-able in my personal experience. I design electronics as a consultant/contractor and I have done remote-controls, TV Station telemetry systems, fire and burglar alarm systems, Fuel control systems, remote lighting control, telephones and answering machines and a bunch of other stuff. All of it is based on a "few" generic parts and a few generic designs. I cut and paste from a schematic onto a new one, add a few bits of glue and I have a board. I cut and paste from a software library and add some more glue and have code. I've delivered things in two weeks that real companies had quoted months for, not because I'm that good, but because I have a good sense of re-use. A generic module could "control" practically everything electronic you encounter throughout a day. Some applications may take several or many in parallel but most can be handled through a single board. With enough effort even something as complicated as a personal computer can be made up of a bunch of smaller modules. More likely you would have two different modules, the small one and the big one mainly to make up for the lack of good parallel processing software today. The only step your example left out is you have to look on the microwave to see that it is software version "xxx" and load that code into the board from some generic database. A clever guy would have each board have a basic boot-strap code that can get its application (microwave, oxygen monitor, refrigerator controller) code through a network such as 485 or Bluetooth. John >> >> >== >> >A better suggestion may be to design a "generic" logic module using modern >> >technology. I'm not suggesting a few gates on a board as in the 80s I am >> >suggesting a 32 Bit ARM processor, a DSP, 160k of program flash, 8Mbits >> >of >> >data flash, 12k of RAM, a USB port, an IRDA port, some A/D channels, some >> >D/A channels, somer general purpose IO pins. This could be built on a 2x3 >> >board that uses very low current (50ma with both CPU and DSP cooking at >> >22/80 mips) at 3.0 volts using available (off the shelf) technology for >> >$20 >> >a board in medium volumes at about 2 oz a board. >> > >This idea has a lot of advantages -- standardized power supply and interface >connectors and such. When someone says, "Hey, this thing doesn't work, >what do I >do?", the answer is "Swap the board," and it won't be necessary to ask "Which >one?" Color-code and polarize the connectors, and when the microwave oven goes >down, the cook could send the dishwasher to fix it. > >Curtis From VM Thu Mar 23 10:11:51 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["95" "Thursday" "23" "March" "2000" "09:07:50" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "4" "RE: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 95 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2NF9eK11210 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:09:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2NF9cw11205 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:09:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p474.gnt.com [204.49.91.90]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA10981; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 09:09:33 -0600 Message-ID: <001201bf94d9$b9c25cc0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'John Bean'" , Subject: RE: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 09:07:50 -0600 On the reuse topic, you should look inside an electronic typewriter. The "cpu" is an Z80! Lee From VM Fri Mar 24 10:14:38 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3653" "Thursday" "23" "March" "2000" "23:42:15" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "93" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3653 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2O4ggx02259 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 20:42:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2O4gew02254 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 20:42:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.da.24a6d5b (3968); Thu, 23 Mar 2000 23:42:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 31 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 23:42:15 EST In a message dated 3/20/00 9:25:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, KellySt@aol.com writes: > > In a message dated 3/20/00 2:42:49 PM, clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: > > >> Dead reckoning navigation (see star and go that way) is the method I > >intend > >> to use and so do not have much use for trigonometric limitations > >> or getting lost in space ;+)> > > > >You'd really try to pilot a ship over interstellar distances that way??! > >You've > >got to be kidding. > > Its trivial. Aim at the star and boost. Its not going to move relative to > the sky? Least not in under a few thousand years. At long as you can > range > your distence to know when to start your decel. Trivial is true as the simpler is the better method. Taking as example a journey to Alpha Centoria at 4 1/4 light years at a constant accelerating 1 g to maintain artificial gravity one need to accelerate 1/2 the distance and then turn 180 degrees and decelerate at the same rate for the remainder of the distance. (7.68 years round trip earth time). The star would be centered in the nose window the first part and then centered in the rear view mirror (preventing neck strain) for the deceleration. Though eye fatigue is not a foreseen problem, as I never have tired at looking at the stars, I would also rope lash the throttle and directional controls to permit sleep, work, rest and other duties with the simplest of auto pilot systems devised for sea journies ;=) The more complicated systems used for navigation today were developed for needs as destinations were hidden by curved horizons, mountains, trees, cloud cover, darkness, and even unobtainable by encounters with current and wind directions. These needs are not present (requiring complex navigational aids) for star travel. I take only what I need and like to take. Taking manual control when in Alpha Centoria's gravity field, ample power will be used to check out any orbiting rocks for suitable landing sites. The reason I think that Hubbell's systems were a poor example as useful, is that they often require repairmen from earth not expected on star journeys of long distance and time. An accurate range finder to determine when to decelerate is the current problem needing a solution I have yet to find. Measuring distance by star brightness is not a good Idea, telescopic resolution of disk diameter is not workable for resolution clarity and the trigonometric function tables derived from calculus at the angles near zero degrees and 90 degrees are values that the calculations differ greatly from measured values over long distances and 6 place tables are little help. triangleization method from measuring angles to the star from spots opposite in the earth orbit fall in accuracy. I may have to steer a zigzag course to get accurate trianangleization data and that I do not want to do very often as it would require a path perpendicular to by line a travel. Doppler shift is so inaccurate as there is no way I know of to determine if the doppler shift of acceleration is determined by position location in an accelerating universe or a Doppler shift caused by relativistic effects of starlight in gravity field. Does the group have any thought, ideas, methods or machines to solve the problem or know of others attempt or solution to answer the question "How far is that star?" with any accuracy and given plus or minus values. It would seem reasonable to be sure of the distance before starting the journey Regards, Tom > > > > > >> > >> Regards, > >> Tom > >> > >> > > >> > Curtis > > > > Kelly > > From VM Fri Mar 24 10:14:38 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2650" "Friday" "24" "March" "2000" "00:07:59" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "70" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2650 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2O74SU26136 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 23:04:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2O74Nw26126 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 23:04:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin45.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.45]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA03660; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 23:58:00 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38DB144F.1AA85B9E@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:07:59 -0700 STAR1SHIP@aol.com wrote: > Though eye fatigue is not a foreseen problem, as I never have tired at > looking at the stars, I would also rope lash the throttle and directional > controls to permit sleep, work, rest and other duties with the simplest of > auto pilot systems devised for sea journies ;=) Chuckle ... > The more complicated systems used for navigation today were developed for > needs as destinations were hidden by curved horizons, mountains, trees, cloud > cover, darkness, and even unobtainable by encounters with current and wind > directions. > An accurate range finder to determine when to decelerate is the current > problem needing a solution I have yet to find. Measuring distance by star > brightness is not a good Idea, telescopic resolution of disk diameter is not > workable for resolution clarity and the trigonometric function tables derived > from calculus at the angles near zero degrees and 90 degrees are values that > the calculations differ greatly from measured values over long distances and > 6 place tables are little help. triangleization method from measuring angles > to the star from spots opposite in the earth orbit fall in accuracy. I may > have to steer a zigzag course to get accurate trianangleization data and that > I do not want to do very often as it would require a path perpendicular to by > line a travel. Star brightness is a good plan for a slower unmanned craft, sent many years earlier.If a probe is sent ahead, timed radio signals can be sent out, for distance measurement. A probe would need to be sent ahead anyway for other measurements. > Doppler shift is so inaccurate as there is no way I know of to determine if > the doppler shift of acceleration is determined by position location in an > accelerating universe or a Doppler shift caused by relativistic effects of > starlight in gravity field. > > Does the group have any thought, ideas, methods or machines to solve the > problem or know of others attempt or solution to answer the question "How far > is that star?" with any accuracy and given plus or minus values. It would > seem reasonable to be sure of the distance before starting the journey > For the near stars triangulation is used, that I think can be improved in future with deep space telescopes and other measuring tools. > Regards, > Tom > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Tom > > >> > > >> > > > >> > Curtis > > > > > > > > Kelly > > > > -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Mar 27 10:11:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2145" "Friday" "24" "March" "2000" "23:36:42" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "47" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2145 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2P4chY18984 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 20:38:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2P4cgw18978 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 20:38:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 4.7b.27519b2 (3968); Fri, 24 Mar 2000 23:36:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <7b.27519b2.260d9c5a@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 31 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 23:36:42 EST In a message dated 3/23/00 7:10:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > On the reuse topic, you should look inside an electronic typewriter. The > "cpu" is an Z80! > > Lee > Lee, Since the CPU chip used in the first PC's, was one of the many parallel processing chips of the early super computers. All CPU chips today still contain the lead input/output pins for connecting in series or parallel with other chips. In one case I used a Novel network board connected to these lead-in pins and wired many (100) used complete XT (Z-80 chip if my memory serves) and AT CPU's in parallel. It worked well and passed the "smoke test" :=). As used and new 386, 486 and pentium CPUs became available the CPU's were changed out. To get the larger capability it was common to first connect four together and then cover with epoxy into one larger chip. As faster speed could be obtained by reducing the "wire" or circuit length new bigger integrated circuts(IC's) with the same internal circuity were fashioned reusing the same schematic diagrams. Other chip functions were added as needed. In my case I did not bother with epoxy or new IC manufacture and used the complete CPU case and insides without a monitor or keyboard. Size was not an issue as the racks for 6 hard drives, larger power supply fit nicely with the CPU's on bakery bread racks making a single unit with 12 CPU's, 72 hard drives, and 12 power supplies. To build a new computer one need not spend great amounts on new schematics or tooling to create new integrated circuits. Most hobbyist and experimenters combine IC's by using the mentioned pin connectors to obtain the needed functions to get first to market. Many software writers also save lots of money and time by reusing existing code. Research and development costs need not prohibit anyone from building new devices suitable for marketing. I recommend to those who seek investors instead invest some time looking into used technology parts to provide the lion's share of the machine they envision as their invention and not try and reinvent the wheel. Best regards, Tom From VM Mon Mar 27 10:11:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2179" "Friday" "24" "March" "2000" "21:30:52" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "43" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2179 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2P5Umq26991 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 21:30:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2P5Ulw26983 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 21:30:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2P5Ujo14599 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 21:30:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2P5UsB11059; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 21:30:54 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14556.20236.420465.531830@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <7b.27519b2.260d9c5a@aol.com> References: <7b.27519b2.260d9c5a@aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 21:30:52 -0800 (PST) STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 3/23/00 7:10:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, > lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > > On the reuse topic, you should look inside an electronic typewriter. The > > "cpu" is an Z80! > > > > Lee > Lee, > Since the CPU chip used in the first PC's, was one of the many parallel > processing chips of the early super computers. All CPU chips today still > contain the lead input/output pins for connecting in series or parallel with > other chips. In one case I used a Novel network board connected to these > lead-in pins and wired many (100) used complete XT (Z-80 chip if my memory > serves) and AT CPU's in parallel. It worked well and passed the "smoke test" > :=). As used and new 386, 486 and pentium CPUs became available the CPU's > were changed out. Tom, you're making stuff up again. The 8080, Z-80, 8086/8088, and 80286 don't have any intrinsic support for hardware synchronization to allow multiple CPUs to share memory or other peripherals in the same system. People built external logic for processors of that period to support multi-CPU systems with shared memory and peripherals, but you can't just directly hook together the only the microprocessor chips themselves and have it work. In fact, it makes no sense talking about wiring together the kinds of processors you're talking about either in series or in parallel. Even modern microprocessors with intrinsic support for multi-CPU systems require some external logic for things like bus arbitration and interrupt handling. Neither are "early supercomputers" that similar to microprocessors; depending on how far you go back, earlier computer designs didn't use integrated circuits at all or used a quantity of much simpler ICs to implement the CPU. Few of these designs supported multiple CPUs with shared access to common memory or peripherals either. When they did the designs were architecturally very different from modern microprocessors. There are certainly computing tasks where one can use a lot of individual complete computer systems operating in parallel, but it's not nearly as easy as soldering a stack of Z-80s together. From VM Mon Mar 27 10:11:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1296" "Friday" "24" "March" "2000" "22:43:52" "-0700" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "30" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1296 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2P5e3L27946 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 21:40:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2P5e2w27939 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 21:40:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin34.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.34]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA23476; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 22:33:43 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <38DC5218.4B47B5F4@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7b.27519b2.260d9c5a@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 22:43:52 -0700 STAR1SHIP@aol.com wrote: > Since the CPU chip used in the first PC's, was one of the many parallel > processing chips of the early super computers. All CPU chips today still > contain the lead input/output pins for connecting in series or parallel with > other chips. <-- cut --> > To get the larger capability it was common to first connect four together and > then cover with epoxy into one larger chip. As faster speed could be obtained > by reducing the "wire" or circuit length new bigger integrated circuts(IC's) > with the same internal circuity were fashioned reusing the same schematic > diagrams. I always thought memory is the limiting factor, not CPU'S. I like the idea 1 process per cpu, 50 jobs 50 cpu's. > > To build a new computer one need not spend great amounts on new schematics or > tooling to create new integrated circuits. Most hobbyist and experimenters > combine IC's by using the mentioned pin connectors to obtain the needed > functions to get first to market. Some marketing is rather sleazy, the best computer is the one that fits the job, not what marketing thinks, -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Mar 27 10:11:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["363" "Sunday" "26" "March" "2000" "08:35:06" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "14" "starship-design: New class of gamma rays discovered in Milky Way" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 363 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2QEawT15562 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 06:36:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2QEavw15557 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 06:36:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from broadsword (p463.gnt.com [204.49.91.79]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA22774 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 08:36:53 -0600 Message-ID: <008b01bf9730$a9f2cfb0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: starship-design: New class of gamma rays discovered in Milky Way Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 08:35:06 -0600 This is from CNN: http://cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/03/23/gamma.ray/index.html If you want to find ET then perhaps you should try looking for the trail that an antimatter engine might leave... Lee Parker "People do love to go to weird places for reasons we can't imagine -- mostly because they have too much money." - Freeman Dyson From VM Mon Mar 27 10:11:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3794" "Sunday" "26" "March" "2000" "14:50:19" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "69" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3794 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2QJoar00088 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 11:50:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2QJoZw00082 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 11:50:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id s.b8.38da630 (9819); Sun, 26 Mar 2000 14:50:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 31 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stevev@efn.org CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 14:50:19 EST In a message dated 3/20/00 8:54:15 PM Pacific Standard Time, stevev@efn.org writes: > > The ship carries the fuel. Either both the ship and the fuel get more > massive with velocity or both the ship and the fuel stay the same mass. > Are you claiming that the fuel gets more massive but the ship that > carries it stays the same? Either way the fuel can only provide so much > acceleration, and that little fission fuel can't propel a heavier > payload to relativistic velocities. > > Hi Steve, Taking for example the general equation MVof exhaust=MVof payload. to accelerate a given payload mass of 5 tons twice light speed requires I accelerate 100 tons of exhaust to 1/10 light speed (at 1 g acceleration). Using the equation E(kinetic)=1/2 MV we get the energy required. using the equation E=Mc^2 we get the mass that needs to be converted providing the energy. >From the laws of conservation momentum(P) we have the equation P=MV as momentum is required by universal law to be conserved. P of exhaust= P of payload. this shown in the equation MV of exhaust=P=MV of payload. it is proven mathematically with an identity proof (the strongest of math proofs)stating if a=b and b=c then a=c or (a=b=c). Machines like partical accelerators that use the general instantaneous acceleration equation of E'=1/2 MV gamma, reguire the Energy relativistic equation to be used for the energy is delivered intantaneously (small increment of time)from the relativistic(observer or rest) frame instead of the frame of moving(inertial) object and is therefore limited to below light speed relativistic so that momentum is conserved. The equation commonly leading to a erroneous velocity real calculation of like .3 or .8c was derived by Einstein and clearly labeled Velocity Rel.(for relativistic velocity) in the margin. Subsequent typists saw the label out there by itself and not knowing what it meant dropped the label and kept the equation. Mathematicians often tire of writing the full variable parameter of velocity relativistic in freehand so use V (subscript rel.) or better yet just v as v=Velocity Relativistic with the understanding the equations are under the defining label and the relativistic(observer) frame and distinguishable from velocity real of the ship frame of reference also designated as Velocity Real by label. Just remember that regardless of what an observer on earth calculates as relativistic regarding the moving ship, aboard the ship all remains normal (real) as a basic postulate of relativity. Placing both sets of equations on a page can be confusing as some use prime( ' ) for relativistic and drop the subscript real just using the small case variable letter without prime and the labels and variable definitions are required to be placed at the top any calculations to prevent confusion. Another common mistake with rocket equations when I give students a problem with constants to solve containing 1 g some invariably look through the unified field of equations I also give and select the first one with 1 g in it and attempt to solve with ISP(specific impulse calculation) and when the equation v=gt is the one to be used. ISP numbers stamped on model rocket engines are determined by measurements of actually firings of chemical rockets so that a given payload mass attached can be reliably calculated with the special equation to give an accurate velocity predictions in a uniform gravitational field of one g (near earth's surface). ISP numbers and predictions of what they would be are only guess work (usually poor guesses at that) for atomic engines as the measurement database has yet to be built. To get accurate velocity calculations the original general rocket equations are to used. Regards, Tom From VM Mon Mar 27 10:11:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1763" "Sunday" "26" "March" "2000" "13:20:46" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "37" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1763 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2QLKpa16431 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 13:20:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2QLKow16426 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 13:20:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2QLKmo26073 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 13:20:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2QLKvc19646; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 13:20:57 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14558.32558.387282.815203@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 13:20:46 -0800 (PST) STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > Taking for example the general equation MVof exhaust=MVof payload. > to accelerate a given payload mass of 5 tons twice light speed requires I > accelerate 100 tons of exhaust to 1/10 light speed (at 1 g acceleration). > Using the equation E(kinetic)=1/2 MV we get the energy required. > using the equation E=Mc^2 we get the mass that needs to be converted > providing the energy. That equation isn't relativistically correct. In the situation where your 5 ton payload _instantaneously_ reacts 100 tons of fuel which is ejected in one direction at 0.1 c, then we would have: Mp * Vp / sqrt(1 - Vp^2) = Mf * Vf / sqrt(1 - Vf^2) Solving for Vp we would get about 0.89 c. And this is still oversimplified. If you carry 100 tons of fuel and accelerate at 1 g the resulting velocity is much lower because you aren't just pushing 5 tons of payload but all the remaining fuel at that point in the trip. If your fuel is capable of reacting to produce exhaust products that travel at 0.1 c, then you're also converting a nonnegligible amount of fuel mass into energy, and that needs to be accounted for too. > Machines like partical accelerators that use the general instantaneous > acceleration equation of E'=1/2 MV gamma, reguire the Energy relativistic > equation to be used for the energy is delivered intantaneously (small > increment of time)from the relativistic(observer or rest) frame instead of > the frame of moving(inertial) object and is therefore limited to below light > speed relativistic so that momentum is conserved. The same laws of physics apply to rockets as to particles in particle accelerators. You don't get to pick and choose which laws of physics you want to apply in which situations. From VM Mon Mar 27 10:11:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3227" "Sunday" "26" "March" "2000" "21:42:48" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "62" "Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3227 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2R2h7n17463 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 18:43:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2R2h5w17451 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 18:43:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id s.ce.330726a (6963); Sun, 26 Mar 2000 21:42:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 31 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stevev@efn.org CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE] Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 21:42:48 EST In a message dated 3/24/00 9:32:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, stevev@efn.org writes: > > Lee, > > Since the CPU chip used in the first PC's, was one of the many parallel > > processing chips of the early super computers. All CPU chips today still > > contain the lead input/output pins for connecting in series or parallel > with > > other chips. In one case I used a Novel network board connected to these > > lead-in pins and wired many (100) used complete XT (Z-80 chip if my > memory > > serves) and AT CPU's in parallel. It worked well and passed the "smoke > test" > > :=). As used and new 386, 486 and pentium CPUs became available the CPU's > > > were changed out. > > Tom, you're making stuff up again. Truth is stranger than fiction and sometimes harder to belive. ;=) Not only did I build it, I built it on the fly without any plans as my job was to test hard drives in the engineering lab. It evolved over 3 years period as I was required to test more and more drives with the same man power. Peak production was testing 1100 drives at once. Many on Apple and Sun systems that were not networked had monitors and keyboard and required manual input to test the 6 drives each on SCSI cable with id 1-6. 600 drives were networked on IBM clones as described so that the paralleled CPU's could be run from the single series CPU with monitor and keyboard at my desk. The team evaluated many network systems before I found that Novel allowed the parallel connection mentioned by finding the display the same as a test monitor hooked to the parallel PC. I then used LAN Assist (like PC anywhere for DOS) to run the proprietary testing software contained on a floppy in each PC. This software placed the drives in constant read, writes and seeks and recorded each bit written, seeks, recovered and unrecovered errors. and placed daily the summary file on the floppies named like A17.txt designating the drive number rack no and PC no. I wrote programs on the fly and ran bat files and Useful Macros scripts with keystrokes and time delays) to automate collecting each summary daily and for collecting the files, printing. Evaluating unrecovered errors analyzing drive failures for failure analysis and determining mean time between failures(MTBF) -goal one million hours. I put the drives back in test after an hour or so analysis- each drive blinked constantly and the system evaluated trillions of bits of data on a daily basis. Before I left all 100 PC CPUs had been moved to stainless steel wire rack shelves and the drives were on the same type rack in a heat room connected to the PCs by 20 foot SCSI, ESDI, and IDE cables. The heat room MTBF formula could then be adjusted for accelerated failure rate causing less testing time. We moved 5 or six times during building and as 5 or 10 tons of air-conditioning were put in, when we moved out, offices moved in., thus air conditioning a large portion of the plant to boot. Even lightning strikes tripping many surge suppressors could not bring the system down unless building power went out. Yes (you might ask) when the system powered up daily after a minute shut down the overhead lights dimmed Tom From VM Mon Mar 27 10:11:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5738" "Sunday" "26" "March" "2000" "22:52:21" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "130" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5738 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2R3qi129777 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 19:52:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2R3qhw29771 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 19:52:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id s.35.30022b8 (6963); Sun, 26 Mar 2000 22:52:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <35.30022b8.261034f5@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 31 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stevev@efn.org CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 22:52:21 EST In a message dated 3/26/00 1:21:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, stevev@efn.org writes: > STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > > Taking for example the general equation MVof exhaust=MVof payload. > > to accelerate a given payload mass of 5 tons twice light speed requires I > > > accelerate 100 tons of exhaust to 1/10 light speed (at 1 g acceleration). > > Using the equation E(kinetic)=1/2 MV we get the energy required. > > using the equation E=Mc^2 we get the mass that needs to be converted > > providing the energy. > > That equation isn't relativistically correct. I believe I now understand your use of term relativisic velocity. All velocities are relativistic in that they do change from the perspective of the observer. Relativistic velocities is a term used loosely in an enginneering sense to describe relativistic effects that are more noticable at velocities near light speed, usually .8c or better when the effects become significant. Below that speed the effects are insignifigant but not zero. This has nothing to do with velocity relativistic described by Einstein. I previously pointed out why and how the relativistic rocket equation MV times gamma of payload=MV times gamma of exhaust converts to the real equation MV of exhaust= MV of payload by canceling the gamma factor out. > In the situation where your 5 ton payload _instantaneously_ reacts 100 > tons of fuel which is ejected in one direction at 0.1 c, then we would > have: > > Mp * Vp / sqrt(1 - Vp^2) = Mf * Vf / sqrt(1 - Vf^2) First my engine does not use instanteous acceleration. It ejects propellant gradually or I would have to use the particle accelerator equation. Einstein found and saw the problem with relativistic equations containing a sqrt term as some root solutions from square roots gave invalid results of imaginary solutions so corrected his relativistic equations to eliminate that problem. I suspect you learned that equation in historical sequence without examining and using his later corrections. > Solving for Vp we would get about 0.89 c. And this is still > oversimplified. As I stated before velocity relativistic is always going to calculate to below light speed. When the rocket exceeds light speed relativistic it becomes unobservable because the observer light is limited to light speed. You have to transform from velocity relativisatic back to velocity real to get the actual velocity of the ship. What part of Velocity real = distance divided by time dilated did you not understand? > > If you carry 100 tons of fuel and accelerate at 1 g the resulting > velocity is much lower because you aren't just pushing 5 tons of payload > but all the remaining fuel at that point in the trip. The energy calculation E=1/2 MV determines the energy required and the mass conversion formulae M=E/c^2 tells you the amount of mass needed to get the energy. The variables you mention are not part of the given problem or equation solution. To prove this to your own satisfaction using identity proofs instead of using twice light speed and 5 tons use the 100 ton and 1/10 light speed with your MV portion of your equation. The different values you will calculate prove the equation violates conservation of momentum. as .89c you first calculated does not equal something else and P=MV always and P is always conserved in valid equations not just arbitarialy selected root solutions of square root terms. > > If your fuel is capable of reacting to produce exhaust products that > travel at 0.1 c, then you're also converting a nonnegligible amount of > fuel mass into energy, and that needs to be accounted for too. It is nonnegligible, but treated engineering wise as insignifigant but not zero. The equation is thus simpified and when reduced to practice the rule of thumb is to carry more fuel than you calculate needed. > > > Machines like partical accelerators that use the general instantaneous > > acceleration equation of E'=1/2 MV gamma, reguire the Energy relativistic > > > equation to be used for the energy is delivered intantaneously (small > > increment of time)from the relativistic(observer or rest) frame instead > of > > the frame of moving(inertial) object and is therefore limited to below > light > > speed relativistic so that momentum is conserved. > The same laws of physics apply to rockets as to particles in particle > accelerators. I agree completely. >You don't get to pick and choose which laws of physics > you want to apply in which situations. You need to understand clearly the difference between math and physics in order to chose (pick)the correct equations for any given problem. Your mangled choices to support your erronous light speed limit beliefs while completely ignoring all other facts and wwworking equations claiming them not valid when cleary shown otherwise is not acceptable. You can repeat making unsubstaniated claims (arrogance) a thousand times and they do not become true. Albert Einstein paraphrased partial quote (1955)-- It is possible a machine other than a particle accelerator can be found to send objects faster than light. End guote-- I found the machine predicted(atomic rocket)- end discussion.....unless you change from your unproven, unsubstatiated claim or provide from a credible source the proof we have little to talk about unless you can suggest something. I have no desire to teach the mistaught and misbehaving ;=)> I have the patent rights to a star ship and you just are not going to get to heaven(s) unless I decide you are behaving. Best Regards, Tom Plasma Rocket Engine From VM Mon Mar 27 10:11:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2990" "Sunday" "26" "March" "2000" "21:01:18" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "63" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2990 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2R51Ua11044 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 21:01:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2R51Tw11039 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 21:01:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2R51Qo11785 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 21:01:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2R51JE21711; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 21:01:19 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14558.60190.51461.363051@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <35.30022b8.261034f5@aol.com> References: <35.30022b8.261034f5@aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 21:01:18 -0800 (PST) STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > I previously pointed out why and how the relativistic rocket equation MV > times gamma of payload=MV times gamma of exhaust converts to the real > equation MV of exhaust= MV of payload by canceling the gamma factor out. You can't cancel out the gamma factors because the payload and the fuel are travelling at different velocities, hence have different gamma factors. > > In the situation where your 5 ton payload _instantaneously_ reacts 100 > > tons of fuel which is ejected in one direction at 0.1 c, then we would > > have: > > > > Mp * Vp / sqrt(1 - Vp^2) = Mf * Vf / sqrt(1 - Vf^2) > > First my engine does not use instanteous acceleration. It ejects propellant > gradually or I would have to use the particle accelerator equation. Which is why your "Mp * Vp = Mf * Vf" is still wrong. That equation is inherently about an instantaneous reaction. In any case the payload velocity obtained by gradually reacting the fuel is always _less_ than the velocity you could obtain if you reacted it all instantaneously. In a rocket that carries its fuel along with it, reacting the fuel gradually means that some of that energy goes into accelerating the remaining fuel along with the payload, so overall less energy goes into accelerating the payload itself. > Einstein found and saw the problem with relativistic equations containing a > sqrt term as some root solutions from square roots gave invalid results of > imaginary solutions so corrected his relativistic equations to eliminate that > problem. I suspect you learned that equation in historical sequence without > examining and using his later corrections. Many relativistic equations give imaginary results if you plug velocities greater than c into them. Since relativity is not intended to make any predictions about what will happen should something move faster than c, it's physically meaningless to talk about using velocities greater than c in relativistic formulae. > What part of Velocity real = distance divided by time dilated did you > not understand? I understand that it's a physically bogus concept. You're combining measurements made in different reference frames, which is relativistically invalid. > You can repeat making unsubstaniated claims (arrogance) a thousand times and > they do not become true. Yes, I wish you'd figure that out. > I have the patent rights to a star ship and you just are not going to get to > heaven(s) unless I decide you are behaving. Chortle. Given the combination of wishful thinking, wild handwaving, and garbled math you keep throwing around, I doubt you're going anywhere. If you think I'm misunderstanding relativity, take it up with Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler. I'm much more willing to trust their scholarship and their coherent explanation of relativity in their book _Spacetime Physics_ than I am willing to trust your frequently contradictory and self-aggrandizing statements. From VM Mon Mar 27 17:29:19 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2220" "Monday" "27" "March" "2000" "20:21:29" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "62" "starship-design: Save Iridium?!" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2220 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2S1Lk524374 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:21:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2S1Ljw24368 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:21:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id a.26.383ca3e (3705); Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:21:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <26.383ca3e.26116319@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_26.383ca3e.26116319_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: DTaylor648@aol.com, JohnFrance@aol.com, jensenm@saic.com, moschleg@erols.com, SFnoirSD@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, bbbark@surfree.com, DotarSojat@aol.com, rddesign@rddesigns.com, RICKJ@btio.com, kathan@kcscorner.place.cc, lord_starchild@hotmail.com, edrataj@earthlink.net, indy@the-line.com, alwermter@netzero.net Subject: starship-design: Save Iridium?! Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:21:29 EST --part1_26.383ca3e.26116319_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/27/00 1:20:12 PM, kgstarks@crnotes.collins.rockwell.com writes: > >http://www.saveiridium.com/ > >With Iridium planing to deorbit its completed sat array, some private folks >aer >trying to take it over and operate it. Guess it worked for WEB software >and >such. Ham radio operators have their own hobby sat.... --part1_26.383ca3e.26116319_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (rly-yh01.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.33]) by air-yh03.mail.aol.com (v70.20) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:20:12 -0500 Received: from gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com (gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com [205.175.225.1]) by rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (v70.21) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:19:48 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com; id NAA27225; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 13:19:38 -0600 (CST) Received: from mnpcl1.collins.rockwell.com(131.198.67.150) by gatekeeper.collins.rockwell.com via smap (V4.2) id xma027084; Mon, 27 Mar 00 13:18:40 -0600 Received: from crnotes.collins.rockwell.com (crnotes [131.198.213.32]) by mnpcl1.collins.rockwell.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA01233 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 13:18:37 -0600 (CST) Received: by crnotes.collins.rockwell.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id 862568AF.006A1065 ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 13:18:30 -0600 X-Lotus-FromDomain: ROCKWELL From: "Kelly G Starks" Sender: "Kelly G Starks" To: kellyst@aol.com Message-ID: <862568AF.006A0F0A.00@crnotes.collins.rockwell.com> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 13:13:04 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.saveiridium.com/ With Iridium planing to deorbit its completed sat array, some private folks aer trying to take it over and operate it. Guess it worked for WEB software and such. Ham radio operators have their own hobby sat.... --part1_26.383ca3e.26116319_boundary-- From VM Wed Mar 29 09:58:46 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["9480" "Tuesday" "28" "March" "2000" "22:11:25" "EST" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "223" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 9480 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2T3Bln00330 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:11:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2T3Bj800324 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:11:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id s.c6.32b70f2 (4334); Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:11:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 100 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stevev@efn.org CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:11:25 EST In a message dated 3/26/00 9:02:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, stevev@efn.org writes: > STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > > I previously pointed out why and how the relativistic rocket equation MV > > times gamma of payload=MV times gamma of exhaust converts to the real > > equation MV of exhaust= MV of payload by canceling the gamma factor out. > > You can't cancel out the gamma factors because the payload and the fuel > are travelling at different velocities, hence have different gamma > factors. Nonsense- The velocity used is that of the payload wrt the exhaust and the second gamma velocity is that of the exhaust wrt the payload. The same value. Do the math the both gamma variables calculate to the same numeric value. Quit making unsubstaniated claims. Laws of math - you can multiply both sides of any equation by any variable or constant and the equation remains equal. -used to solve problems and clear denominators of fractions and decimals. If a=b and b= c then a=c and a/c=1 making the factor cancelable. Law of physics- Gamma is a complex variable with mass, velocity, time and spacial dimensions. Momentum (p)is conserved. always P=MV Thus momentum of the payoad=momentum of exhaust and gammas cancel. Problem solved > > > > In the situation where your 5 ton payload _instantaneously_ reacts 100 > > > tons of fuel which is ejected in one direction at 0.1 c, then we would > > > have: > > > > > > Mp * Vp / sqrt(1 - Vp^2) = Mf * Vf / sqrt(1 - Vf^2) > > > > First my engine does not use instanteous acceleration. It ejects > propellant > > gradually or I would have to use the particle accelerator equation. > > Which is why your "Mp * Vp = Mf * Vf" is still wrong. That equation is > inherently about an instantaneous reaction. nonsense, I never used your Mf equation;=) sometines I use Me * Ve = Mp * Mp The recation is a law of physics stating for every action there is an equal and oposite reaction. My engine is a reaction engine and the reaction is not instantaneous. In any case the payload > velocity obtained by gradually reacting the fuel is always _less_ than > the velocity you could obtain if you reacted it all instantaneously. > In a rocket that carries its fuel along with it, reacting the fuel > gradually means that some of that energy goes into accelerating the > remaining fuel along with the payload, so overall less energy goes into > accelerating the payload itself. so much nonsense I cannot correct you. > > > Einstein found and saw the problem with relativistic equations containing > a > > sqrt term as some root solutions from square roots gave invalid results > of > > imaginary solutions so corrected his relativistic equations to eliminate > that > > problem. I suspect you learned that equation in historical sequence > without > > examining and using his later corrections. > > Many relativistic equations give imaginary results if you plug > velocities greater than c into them. Since relativity is not intended > to make any predictions about what will happen should something move > faster than c, it's physically meaningless to talk about using > velocities greater than c in relativistic formulae. > > > What part of Velocity real = distance divided by time dilated did you > > not understand? > > I understand that it's a physically bogus concept. You're combining > measurements made in different reference frames, which is > relativistically invalid. That is just silly as it is well understood as a consequence of time dilation. What is bogus is you thinking velocites measured on earth of rockets is valid while velocities measured aboard the craft with their time piece are invalid. > > You can repeat making unsubstaniated claims (arrogance) a thousand times > and > > they do not become true. > > Yes, I wish you'd figure that out. My claims are substantiated- documented. I. Einstein invented the atomic bomb. -credible sources 2. He taught "how to make an atomic atomic bomb"- credible sources 3. I have invented and patented an atomic rocket engine.- credible sources, resume -patent office and educational transcript so credible that if I alter or forge the government document transcripts and dipomas or patent letter legal documents numbers, it would be punishable by fine and imprisonment and more so just plain silly. 4. I have built a super computer from scratch. Rocket scientist resume and in case you missed the post quote....... > > Since the CPU chip used in the first PC's, was one of the many parallel > > processing chips of the early super computers. All CPU chips today still > > contain the lead input/output pins for connecting in series or parallel > with > > other chips. In one case I used a Novel network board connected to these > > lead-in pins and wired many (100) used complete XT (Z-80 chip if my > memory > > serves) and AT CPU's in parallel. It worked well and passed the "smoke > test" > > :=). As used and new 386, 486 and pentium CPUs became available the CPU's > > > were changed out. > > Tom, you're making stuff up again. Truth is stranger than fiction and sometimes harder to belive. ;=) Not only did I build it, I built it on the fly without any plans as my job was to test hard drives in the engineering lab. It evolved over 3 years period as I was required to test more and more drives with the same man power. Peak production was testing 1100 drives at once. Many on Apple and Sun systems that were not networked had monitors and keyboard and required manual input to test the 6 drives each on SCSI cable with id 1-6. 600 drives were networked on IBM clones as described so that the paralleled CPU's could be run from the single series CPU with monitor and keyboard at my desk. The team evaluated many network systems before I found that Novel allowed the parallel connection mentioned by finding the display the same as a test monitor hooked to the parallel PC. I then used LAN Assist (like PC anywhere for DOS) to run the proprietary testing software contained on a floppy in each PC. This software placed the drives in constant read, writes and seeks and recorded each bit written, seeks, recovered and unrecovered errors. and placed daily the summary file on the floppies named like A17.txt designating the drive number rack no and PC no. I wrote programs on the fly and ran bat files and Useful Macros scripts with keystrokes and time delays) to automate collecting each summary daily and for collecting the files, printing. Evaluating unrecovered errors analyzing drive failures for failure analysis and determining mean time between failures(MTBF) -goal one million hours. I put the drives back in test after an hour or so analysis- each drive blinked constantly and the system evaluated trillions of bits of data on a daily basis. Before I left all 100 PC CPUs had been moved to stainless steel wire rack shelves and the drives were on the same type rack in a heat room connected to the PCs by 20 foot SCSI, ESDI, and IDE cables. The heat room MTBF formula could then be adjusted for accelerated failure rate causing less testing time. We moved 5 or six times during building and as 5 or 10 tons of air-conditioning were put in, when we moved out, offices moved in., thus air conditioning a large portion of the plant to boot. Even lightning strikes tripping many surge suppressors could not bring the system down unless building power went out. Yes (you might ask) when the system powered up daily after a minute shut down the overhead lights dimmed Tom end quote........ 5. You are mistaught and misbehaving- obvious > > > I have the patent rights to a star ship and you just are not going to get > to > > heaven(s) unless I decide you are behaving. > > Chortle. Given the combination of wishful thinking, wild handwaving, > and garbled math you keep throwing around, I doubt you're going > anywhere. I will remind you again. You doubted 1. Einstein invented the bomb, 2. Einstein taught how to build the bomb. 3. The patent office has documented my invention. 4. I build a super computer from scratch. I proved you wrong each of four times. Doubt: 5. I will exceed light speed Based soley on your doubt ability- more proof- I cannot fail to exceed light speed. > If you think I'm misunderstanding relativity, take it up with Edwin > F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler. I'm much more willing to trust > their scholarship and their coherent explanation of relativity in their > book _Spacetime Physics_ than I am willing to trust your frequently > contradictory and self-aggrandizing statements. I only contradict you and never my self. More unsubstantiated claimes from you. As for Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler. I doubt they read Einstein's 1955 work (from a children's book)so can know little of velocity relativistic. I will make this self-aggrandizing statement- Math Proves- The length of my education transcript (since high school) is longer than Taylor's, Wheelers, and Steve v@efn.org transcripts combined. And that is just grand ;+) You loose, but I will not leave you with nothing left. I will not use a spell checker so maybe you can find a small grammatecal error or speling error to try again to discredit a life's work with your arrogant, mean spirited, nonscientific nonsense:=( Tom From VM Wed Mar 29 09:58:46 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3748" "Tuesday" "28" "March" "2000" "22:04:23" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "86" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3748 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2T63jH13028 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:03:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2T63i813022 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:03:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2T63go01498 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:03:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2T64O200255; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:04:24 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14561.40167.569623.83057@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:04:23 -0800 (PST) STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 3/26/00 9:02:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, stevev@efn.org > writes: > > > STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > > > I previously pointed out why and how the relativistic rocket equation > MV > > > times gamma of payload=MV times gamma of exhaust converts to the real > > > equation MV of exhaust= MV of payload by canceling the gamma factor out. > > > > You can't cancel out the gamma factors because the payload and the fuel > > are travelling at different velocities, hence have different gamma > > factors. > > Nonsense- The velocity used is that of the payload wrt the exhaust and the > second gamma velocity is that of the exhaust wrt the payload. The same value. > Do the math the both gamma variables calculate to the same numeric value. > Quit making unsubstaniated claims. Let me quote back to you what you said earlier: > Taking for example the general equation MVof exhaust=MVof payload. > to accelerate a given payload mass of 5 tons twice light speed requires I > accelerate 100 tons of exhaust to 1/10 light speed (at 1 g acceleration). > Using the equation E(kinetic)=1/2 MV we get the energy required. > using the equation E=Mc^2 we get the mass that needs to be converted > providing the energy. Here you say that the exhaust travels at 0.1 c and the payload travels at 2 c. Setting aside for the moment that no normal interpretation of special relativity allows for something to travel at 2 c, what you originally said did have the exhaust traveling at a different velocity than the payload. More fundamentally, any relativistic analysis requires that you look at a situation in a single reference frame. You can pick the reference frame -- one in which the payload is at rest and the exhaust moving, one in which the exhaust is at rest and the payload moving, or even one in which both are moving, but from the viewpoint of an observer who considers himself to be at rest. But whatever frame you choose, you need to do the analysis consistently in that one frame. Your original statement implies a frame in which the rocket and its fuel are initially at rest before the rocket is ignited. In that frame, after the rocket burns out (which, by your choice of formula, must be essentially instantaneously, since no consideration is made for a gradually decreasing fuel mass over an extended burn period), the payload velocity and the exhaust velocity are by your stipulation not equal, and therefore you cannot cancel the gamma factors in: Mp / sqrt(1 - Vp^2) = Me / sqrt(1 - Ve^2) > Laws of math - you can multiply both sides of any equation by any variable or > constant and the equation remains equal. -used to solve problems and clear > denominators of fractions and decimals. If a=b and b= c then a=c and a/c=1 > making the factor cancelable. Sure, but you're not canceling equal variables, since Vp and Ve are not equal. > Law of physics- > Gamma is a complex variable with mass, velocity, time and spacial dimensions. Gamma is actually dimensionless. v has units of distance/time; c has units of distance/time, hence (v / c) is unitless, and so 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) is also unitless. > Momentum (p)is conserved. At least we can agree on this. > always P=MV Not in the relativistic case; p = m * v is only the Newtonian approximation. > Thus momentum of the payoad=momentum of exhaust and gammas cancel. The payload of the momentum does equal the momentum of the exhaust in the center-of-momentum frame, but in that case the gammas don't cancel. > Problem solved If I had pulled the kind of wild handwaving and sloppy thinking you are trying to pull here, I would have flunked all my math and physics classes. From VM Wed Mar 29 09:58:46 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4187" "Tuesday" "28" "March" "2000" "22:54:17" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "70" "Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4187 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2T6rft23730 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:53:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2T6re823722 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:53:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [206.163.182.194]) by clavin.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e2T6rbo12413 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:53:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e2T6sKR00450; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:54:20 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14561.43161.193786.582078@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:54:17 -0800 (PST) STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > Does the group have any thought, ideas, methods or machines to solve the > problem or know of others attempt or solution to answer the question "How far > is that star?" with any accuracy and given plus or minus values. It would > seem reasonable to be sure of the distance before starting the journey We know reasonably accurate distances to nearby stars via parallax measurements. In fact, the distance unit "parsec" is defined as the distance at which an object will appear to change angular position by one arcsecond when viewed from opposite positions in the Earth's orbit around the Sun perpendicular to the line between the Sun and the distant star. One parsec is approximately 3.26 light years. Sub-arcsecond position measurements of stars has been possible for a long time (since the 1800s, I think). Dividing one parsec by the measured angular parallax of a star in arcseconds gives the distance to the star, but obviously this amplifies the uncertainty in the parallax measurement, making parallax suitable for measuring the distance to only fairly close stars, so far meaning the ones within about 100 light years. More recently the European Space Agency's HIPPARCOS project used an orbiting satellite to make high-precision parallax measurements of thousands of stars to previously unobtainable precision. A web page with information and links to the catalogues obtained from the satellite's measurements is at: http://astro.estec.esa.nl/Hipparcos/hipparcos.html Unfortunately HIPPARCOS didn't achieve its intended orbit and while it was possible to complete its mission in the orbit it attained, the accuracy of its measurements isn't quite as good as was hoped. There are proposals for even more accurate parallax-mapping satellites, which could conceivably accurately measure the distances to most of the visible stars in our galaxy. Parallax is in fact the only currently known method of measuring distance to astronomical objects that has solidly understood uncertainty. Although we know the distance to stars within about 10-20 light years to an uncertainty of a few percent (and the closer the star, the smaller the proportion of uncertainty), all of the other methods used to estimate the distances to farther objects are based primarily on postulated luminosity properties of various stellar objects -- if you know exactly how bright something is supposed to be, then you can tell how far away it is. For example, Cepheid variables (named after a prototype in the constellation Cepheus) are believed to have a relationship between their period of variability and their instrinsic luminosity. Assuming this is true, then by measuring the period of a Cepheid, you know how bright it is in absolute terms; then by measuring how bright it appears to us, you would know how far away it is. Since Cepheids are pretty bright, they can be observed even in nearby galaxies. But so far there's no way to calibrate the period-luminosity relationship of Cepheids, as the nearest Cepheids are too far away to measure accurately by parallax. Similarly it's postulated that Type Ia supernovae have a constant luminosity; they result when a white dwarf in a binary star system gradually accretes mass from its companion until it becomes massive enough to undergo core collapse, so they should always go supernova once they reach a particular mass. Again, however, no nearby Type Ia supernovae have been observed and the estimates of their instrinsic luminosity have been guessed primarily by astrophysical theory. The end result is that while we know the distances to nearby stars to within a few percent, we don't know the distances to nearby galaxies to any better than 20%, maybe worse, and this inaccuracy is a problem for cosmologists. If you have some background in astronomy, an astronomy professor at the University of Oregon (where I work) named Greg Bothun has written a book _Modern Cosmological Observations and Problems_ about the current state of cosmology. It's rather dense reading but very educational, especially as he makes it clear what we _don't_ know about some of the fundamental issues in cosmology.