From VM Sun Apr 2 15:18:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2319" "Saturday" "1" "April" "2000" "15:08:02" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "59" "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2319 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e31E90i03485 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 06:09:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp8.xs4all.nl (root@smtp8.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.51]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e31E8xI03473 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 06:08:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from - (dc2-isdn1072.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.152.48]) by smtp8.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA21006 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 16:08:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000401150802.007619bc@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: 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: FTL travel Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 15:08:02 +0100 Hi Tom, Some remarks on different letters. >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?" You mentioned the parallax method. You didn't like the idea to use the starship to deviate from the straight line towards the destination star. I suggest to sent out probes at right angles to the ship's direction of travel. These probes should contain similar equipment as the Hipparcos satellite that Steve mentioned. The probes may be expendible or not. They may even have their own smaller engine system, so that they can accelerate with the main starship. - - - - - - - - >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. It actually is E(kinetic) = 1/2 m v^2 (Thus v squared.) (The momentum in classical physics indeed is defined as p = m v) - - - - - - - - >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. >Gamma is a complex variable with mass, velocity, time and spacial >dimensions. The gamma used most often only depends on the variable called velocity. Furthermore it so simple that even I can remember it. gamma = 1/Sqrt[1-v^2/c^2] The velocity of the exhaust(propellant) is not at all equal to the velocity of the payload. Hence the two gammas ge and gp should be calculated with different v. You'll see that the ge and gp will not be the same, nor cancel each other out. - - - - - - - - >I have no desire to teach the mistaught and misbehaving Somehow I get the idea that this is told *to you* at several times in your life. Otherwise you might have realized that misunderstanding does not have to be a deliberate act (of misbehavior). Timothy From VM Mon Apr 3 09:56:27 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7006" "Sunday" "2" "April" "2000" "21:27:07" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "149" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil "starship-design: Re: FTL travel" nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7006 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e331RnL23286 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 18:27:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e331RmI23278 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 18:27:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id d.7a.37244a7 (3975); Sun, 2 Apr 2000 21:27:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7a.37244a7.26194d6b@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 100 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 21:27:07 EDT In a message dated 4/1/00 7:10:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl writes: > Hi Tom, Hello Timothy, > Some remarks on different letters. > > >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?" > > You mentioned the parallax method. You didn't like the idea to use the > starship to deviate from the straight line towards the destination star. I > suggest to sent out probes at right angles to the ship's direction of > travel. These probes should contain similar equipment as the Hipparcos > satellite that Steve mentioned. > The probes may be expendible or not. They may even have their own smaller > engine system, so that they can accelerate with the main starship. Good thinking. Probes perpendicular to the line of travel is not a bad idea as long as the base of the triangle formed is long enough to permit accurate trigonometric calculations from the measured angle difference. With angles to close to 90 degrees and the distance calculation from trig tables of say 4 light years will actually measure 4 light years plus or minus 3 light years. Suggested probes sent to the star beforehand face the same problem of needing the distance beforehand before the energy requirements can used to launch the probe. I am not willing to wait for this type probe to send me back the data in 4 years before I can launch. Both type probes are not satisfactory to my way of thinking for when I reach the first star and find no suitable place to land I want to continue on to another star. Selection of which is limited by the number of probes launched from the limited mass of my ship. As I recall 50 years + or - 20 years ago the distance to the stars published in star tables was found to be off by a factor of two from a bad formula. I do not remember how the current star tables were derived by calculation or measured directly. I was looking for the information or a mechanical range finder I could depend on. Any more suggestions. > > - - - - - - - - > > >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. > > It actually is E(kinetic) = 1/2 m v^2 (Thus v squared.) You are correct. It has been years since I made the calculation of 1/2 ton needing to be converted to energy to propel 100 tons of propellant to one-tenth light speed. I probably used the correct formula then and did not redo my calculation while currently discussing it. I then used the energy value calculated and plugged the value into E=Mc^2 to get the mass converted. I recommend any using my data to check my arithmetic and my formulas as I do on construction or test time. > > (The momentum in classical physics indeed is defined as p = m v) > > - - - - - - - - That is why the gamma calculation of .89 C times 5 tons of payload is not equal to 1/10 C times 100 tons of exhaust and therefore violates conservation of momentum as the momentum of the payload does not equal to the momentum of the exhaust even when gamma is used on the exhaust velocity as the gamma effect is a curve and not linear on a graph. At such times I throw out the formula out rather than the universal law of conservation of momentum as directed by Einstein. That formula is one of the gamma Lorenz transforms that Einstein made later corrections for with his derivations that I use in my calculations as Lorenz knew nothing of time dilation discovered by Einstein. > > >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. > > >Gamma is a complex variable with mass, velocity, time and spatial > >dimensions. > > The gamma used most often only depends on the variable called velocity. > Furthermore it so simple that even I can remember it. > > gamma = 1/Sqrt[1-v^2/c^2] I can probably show you six or seven gamma formulas from the equation fields (field defined as a plane surface like paper where all applicable sets of equations are listed available for problem solving). The correct ones uncommonly used are only the partial derivatives of the completed gamma I stated which when graphed on E Vs V axis and is an exponential curve with exponent of two and asymptote at the imaginary vertical line c. > > The velocity of the exhaust(propellant) is not at all equal to the velocity > of the payload. Hence the two gammas ge and gp should be calculated with > different v. You'll see that the ge and gp will not be the same, nor cancel > each other out. > > - - - - - - - - I repeat I can multiply both sides of an equation by the same variable or constant and the equation remains equal to solve the equation. As the complete gamma is a complex variable all variables must be filled not just velocity to conserve momentum. immediately after multiplying both sides by gamma I can cancel by dividing both sides by gamma canceling them out completely. Cancellation is understood to be 1(unity or singularity) and not zero and meaningless as thought by Steve. The equation returns to Me*Ve=Mp*Vp with 1 not shown but understood as Gp/Ge =1 > > >I have no desire to teach the mistaught and misbehaving > > Somehow I get the idea that this is told *to you* at several times in your > life. Otherwise you might have realized that misunderstanding does not have > to be a deliberate act (of misbehavior). Well said. No offense was meant. True any time in past I made the claim mass can exceed light speed the majority assumed it was because I did not know something they were taught and then try and proceed to teach me as they were taught without even listening to what I was taught by Einstein. The phrase mistaught I use quickly circumvents the common train of thought therefore changes the response and then both sides of the question can be examined reasonably. The phrase misbehaving I use as a last resort, when the debater failing to convince or provided credible source or proof resorts to name calling, character assassination and making unsubstantiated claims as I present only credible source and proofs. Misunderstanding I have no problem with so use and answer questions as best I can to clarify that misunderstood by the examiner or examinee even if it be me or they not understanding. Best regards, Tom > > > Timothy > From VM Mon Apr 3 16:00:38 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["268" "Monday" "3" "April" "2000" "23:47:05" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "11" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 268 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e33MlBj15656 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 15:47:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp8.xs4all.nl (root@smtp8.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.51]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e33Ml9I15642 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 15:47:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from - (dc2-isdn1040.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.152.16]) by smtp8.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA23284 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 00:47:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000403234705.006869bc@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <7a.37244a7.26194d6b@aol.com> 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: Re: FTL travel Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 23:47:05 +0100 Hi Tom, >> gamma = 1/Sqrt[1-v^2/c^2] > >I can probably show you six or seven gamma formulas from the >equation fields The one on your page does contain only v and c as well. (It misses the squareroot though.) Timothy From VM Mon Apr 3 18:52:04 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["650" "Monday" "3" "April" "2000" "18:06:31" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "25" "Re: starship-design: New class of gamma rays discovered in Milky Way" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 650 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e3411nK20197 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 18:01:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e3411lI20189 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 18:01:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.97.166]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000403220822.HMHO26411.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 22:08:22 +0000 Message-ID: <38E915E7.98E8016D@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <008b01bf9730$a9f2cfb0$0401a8c0@broadsword> 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: "L. Parker" , starship Subject: Re: starship-design: New class of gamma rays discovered in Milky Way Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 18:06:31 -0400 "L. Parker" wrote: > 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... . . . just make sure you're not stepping on the tail of a superluminal star . . . www.rideau.net/~gaasbeek/index.html#contents . . . about two thirds down in "Frames of Reference: Part Two". I used to like Autodynamics, until I found this. > > > 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 Wed Apr 5 12:25:33 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["154" "Wednesday" "5" "April" "2000" "12:06:09" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "4" "starship-design: query." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 154 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e35J6C013934 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:06:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jason05.u.washington.edu (root@jason05.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e35J6Bn13928 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:06:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dante35.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante35.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.195]) by jason05.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW00.01) with ESMTP id MAA25306 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:06:10 -0700 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante35.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id MAA75630 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:06:10 -0700 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: query. Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:06:09 -0700 (PDT) Can anyone send me a link (or many links) relating to Electrostatic Inertial Confinement of plasmas, especially Bussard's "polywell" device? Thanks, Nels From VM Thu Apr 6 10:02:03 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2745" "Wednesday" "5" "April" "2000" "22:53:41" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "81" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2745 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e362sgd11702 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 19:54:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e362sfn11695 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 19:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id d.c8.34285cb (3965); Wed, 5 Apr 2000 22:53:41 -0400 (EDT) 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: Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 22:53:41 EDT In a message dated 4/3/00 4:00:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl writes: > Hi Tom, > > >> gamma = 1/Sqrt[1-v^2/c^2] > > > >I can probably show you six or seven gamma formulas from the > >equation fields > > The one on your page does > contain only v and c as well. (It misses the squareroot though.) > > Timothy Hey Timothy, I do not use the square root one as Einstein instructed it had problems of returning imaginary solutions of real numbers and not just imaginary numbers. He fixed the problem with a different derivative I was taught in 1968 at the FAA Academy. The field of equations at indexC.htm is a unified field where all equations are in the same system of measurements and more important where variables like v in different formulas that are not the same are defined and subscripted properly. In this manner standardized definitions are made and discussions do no start out with "no this means that and not this" As It was Einstein's Unified Field Theory that more real work could be accomplished If all spoke the same language-in such a manner different scientific disciplines like electronics, chemistry, physics, math...etc could have a single source field of equations to work from to derive equations to solve unknowns. If you think indexC is confusing you should see my electronics field of equations I will scan in when I find it. I use the American system of measurements my self so click on Mathcad's units of measurement and select those I am most conformable with as I make enough errors without adding conversion errors. I could not land on Mars if I mixed units of measurements ;) Checking my math. if E(kinteic)=1/2MV^2 and E=MC^2 then 1/2MV^2=E(kinetic)=E=MC^2 The energy required to send 100 tons of propellant at 1/10 light speed is said at E(kinetic)=1/2[100 tons times (c/10)^2] E(kinetic)=1/2(100 tons times c^2/100) To find the amount of Mass to be converted to the required energy E=MC^2 solving for M is M=E/C^2 therefore replacing E with calculated E(kinetic) of 1/2(100 tons times c^2/100) therefore M= [1/2(100 tons times c^2/100)]/C^2 and clearing first then second parenthesis M= 100 tons times c^2/200C^2 and canceling C^2 therefore M=100/200 tons or M= 1/2 ton of matter to convert to energy to propel 100 tons of propellant to 1/10 light speed. >From MeVe=MpVp since 1/2 ton is converted then only 99.5 tons of propellant reach 1/10 light speed. so for a five ton payload the payload velocity calculates to be Vp=MeVe/Mp placing the calculations in to solve Vp=99.5 tons times 1/10 C/5 tons solves to Vp=9.95C/5 solves to Vp=1.99 C Tom Profession- High Speed, High Energy Physics From VM Thu Apr 6 15:47:34 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["718" "Thursday" "6" "April" "2000" "18:42:35" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "23" "Re: starship-design: query." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 718 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e36Mh2S15771 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 15:43:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e36Mh1n15753 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 15:43:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id d.dd.2d5639b (3314); Thu, 6 Apr 2000 18:42:35 -0400 (EDT) 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: nlindber@u.washington.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: query. Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 18:42:35 EDT In a message dated 4/5/00 2:13:27 PM, nlindber@u.washington.edu writes: >Can anyone send me a link (or many links) relating to Electrostatic >Inertial Confinement of plasmas, especially Bussard's "polywell" device? >Thanks, >Nels http://www.mathematik.uni-marburg.de/~kronjaeg/hv/fusor/index.html http://ne43.ne.uiuc.edu/fsl/welcome.html http://www.glubco.com/weaponry/fusor/fusor.htm http://www.glubco.com/weaponry/fusor/fusor2.htm http://www.ticnet.com/bertpool/philo/philo.htm http://aries.ucsd.edu/SCICOM/AC-PANEL/REC-DOCS/COMMENTS/ http://aries.ucsd.edu/SCICOM/AC-PANEL/REC-DOCS/COMMENTS/miley-2.960603.html http://aries.ucsd.edu/SCICOM/AC-PANEL/REC-DOCS/COMMENTS/miley.960325.html Hope this helps. Kelly From VM Thu Apr 6 19:39:37 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2023" "Thursday" "6" "April" "2000" "20:53:18" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "49" "Re: starship-design: query." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2023 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e370rZG02254 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:53:35 -0700 (PDT) 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 e370rXn02249 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:53:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.75.2d9a113 (3976); Thu, 6 Apr 2000 20:53:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <75.2d9a113.261e8b7e@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 100 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: query. Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 20:53:18 EDT n a message dated 4/5/00 12:13:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, nlindber@u.washington.edu writes: > Can anyone send me a link (or many links) relating to Electrostatic > Inertial Confinement of plasmas, especially Bussard's "polywell" device? > Thanks, > Nels On applied physics. A world wide patent search(1990) in applied physics for plasma rocket engines(two dimensional containers) revealed: Nuclear Powered Propulsive Device- Arthur W. Blackman Jr.- Pat 3,108,054 Gaseous Vortex Reactor For A Rocket Motor- Frank E. Rom- Pat 3,270,496 Nuclear Rocket Motor- Frank E. Rom et al (Lat."and other(s)") -Pat 3,336,749 Gas Core Reactor Propulsion System- Henry M. Hunter et al- Pat 3,399,534 Gaseous Nuclear Rocket Engine- Sheldon Weinbaum et all- Pat 3,714,782 Type in the above patent number at the U.S. patent office website and you will get the complete plans and description for two dimensional plasma containment devices. My container is Plasma Rocket Engine A magnetoplasmatic rocket engine VASIMIR is a proposal to construct a proof of principle test under NASA supervision. Link http://spacsun.rice.edu/aspl/ For theoretical physics: and three dimensional containers you are on your own as presently scientists do not know how to contain a plasma in three dimensions for any significant length of time or even having significant power levels that do not burst or leak from the container. I do not know why they want one. I am not sure what you want the info for but I hope the links help. If you have want to know anything more specific jusk ask. Who is Bussard and what did he contain? Bussard's inventions are listed as references by patent number in many of the above patents(not mine) and use the given patent numbers to see his machines. Find his Patent proper name used and you can search for his unlisted patents. "Polywell" will not return search results unless that is the proper name of his patented invention. Tom From VM Thu Apr 6 19:39:37 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2795" "Thursday" "6" "April" "2000" "22:08:00" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "73" "Re: starship-design: query.Opps" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2795 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e3728SS19191 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 19:08:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e3728Qn19186 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 19:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.46.3ad31cd (3976) for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 22:08:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <46.3ad31cd.261e9d00@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 100 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: query.Opps Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 22:08:00 EDT In a message dated 4/6/00 5:53:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, STAR1SHIP writes: > n a message dated 4/5/00 12:13:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, nlindber@u. > washington.edu writes: > > > Can anyone send me a link (or many links) relating to Electrostatic > > Inertial Confinement of plasmas, especially Bussard's "polywell" device? > > Thanks, > > Nels > > On applied physics. > A world wide patent search(1990) in applied physics for plasma rocket > engines(two dimensional containers) revealed: > > Nuclear Powered Propulsive Device- Arthur W. Blackman Jr.- Pat 3,108,054 > Gaseous Vortex Reactor For A Rocket Motor- Frank E. Rom- Pat 3,270,496 > Nuclear Rocket Motor- Frank E. Rom et al (Lat."and other(s)") -Pat 3,336,749 > > Gas Core Reactor Propulsion System- Henry M. Hunter et al- Pat 3,399,534 > Gaseous Nuclear Rocket Engine- Sheldon Weinbaum et all- Pat 3,714,782 > > Type in the above patent number at the U.S. patent office website and you > will get the complete plans and description for two dimensional plasma > containment devices. > > My two dimensional container is A Plasma Rocket Engine http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexb.htm > > A magnetoplasmatic rocket engine VASIMIR > is a proposal to construct a proof of principle test under NASA supervision. > Link > http://spacsun.rice.edu/aspl/ > > For theoretical physics: > and three dimensional containers you are on your own as presently scientists > do not know how to contain a plasma in three dimensions for any significant > length of time or even having significant power levels that do not burst or > leak from the container. I do not know why they want one. > > I am not sure what you want the info for but I hope the links help. If you > have want to know anything more specific jusk ask. > > Who is Bussard and what did he contain? > > Bussard's inventions are listed as references by patent number in many of > the above patents(not mine) and use the given patent numbers to see his > machines. Find his Patent proper name used and you can search for his > unlisted patents. "Polywell" will not return search results unless that is > the proper name of his patented invention. > > Tom Pardon the previous garbeled post. I had e-mailed it to nlindber@u. washington.edu and negleted to forward to this list and the first attempt to correct failed- So with rewrite Kelly your good links were on target for theoretical physics. My animated FTL engine for your enjoyment (and amusement) ;=) Click on the blue transporter bar at top of animation to transport to cyberspace starship's transporter room. http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/Page1.html Click here: Engine Animation From VM Thu Apr 6 19:54:37 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil] ["8422" "Thursday" "6" "April" "2000" "22:53:17" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "<5a.38098c7.261ea79d@aol.com>" "203" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 8422 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e372rTS28089 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 19:53:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e372rSn28077 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 19:53:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id q.5a.38098c7 (3976); Thu, 6 Apr 2000 22:53:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5a.38098c7.261ea79d@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 100 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: jeff@meridian-ds.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 22:53:17 EDT In a message dated 3/28/00 10:13:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jeff@meridian-ds.com writes: > Tom I have not written before as I haven't had a lot to say, What I have to > say is simple and to the point put up or shut up. You quote these credible > sources over and over again if they are so credible then tell me where I > can find them, Hi, Jeff , You must of missed the previous post listing the source quotes. The below quote (click on blue Einstein link) was provided. It matched the near death bed confession of Albert Einstein I read in 1963. 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 partial quote ------ >You may be right but until I can read these sources and > determine their credibility they are meaningless to me. I believe that most > intelligent people think this way. I know I do. The only reason I took Einstein serious then is that what he said about how the atomic bomb worked matched what my uncle ( who put parts in the atomic bomb casings at Pantex) said to a coworker. I overheard from back seat of car at age six and thought it would be a handy thing to remember so I did. here is the next source quotes. "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---- > Also if you already have the patents as > you say you do then no one here can use them in any way, shape or form so > it won't (shouldn't) bother you to post your patented plans or some portion > of said patent. Not so. You can ask for license with reason, and depending on the rights you seek the liscense fee can be as little as one dollar. > Sorry Tom but there is no way you can wire CPU's to a > network board and magically have parallel processing with bat files, at > BEST what you made was a bastardized network not a super computer. Me thinks and uses CPU as it stands for the Central Processing Unit of a computer system. (the box the monitor keyboard, mouse etc are attached to. Not the CPU chip (like pentium 2) inside the box. Again stated the first PC's were made from a parrelel processesing chip from a supercomputer that was attached by mother board to monitor, keyboard, trape drive and the operating system was reduced with many commands not used. I knew this when I began construction of my super computer by wiring the CPU(towers cases and desktops) in parralel and expanding the operating system by adding more commands with bat and macro scripts (time delays for keystrokes establihing the timing and control programs) contained on the series CPU which became the system new true CPU. The super computer is as I described and performed as I stated and documented on my resume (unembelished) at my website. see bio.htm(l). Instead of making unsubstantiated claims of "no way" would it not be better to ask "how" I did something. >Until > you can point me to these credible sources or for that matter anyone I sure > wish you would drop it. I did point but "You can lead a horse to w..." Tom also Checking my math. if E(kinteic)=1/2MV^2 and E=MC^2 then 1/2MV^2=E(kinetic)=E=MC^2 The energy required to send 100 tons of propellant at 1/10 light speed is said at E(kinetic)=1/2[100 tons times (c/10)^2] E(kinetic)=1/2(100 tons times c^2/100) To find the amount of Mass to be converted to the required energy E=MC^2 solving for M is M=E/C^2 therefore replacing E with calculated E(kinetic) of 1/2(100 tons times c^2/100) therefore M= [1/2(100 tons times c^2/100)]/C^2 and clearing first then second parenthesis M= 100 tons times c^2/200C^2 and canceling C^2 therefore M=100/200 tons or M= 1/2 ton of matter to convert to energy to propel 100 tons of propellant to 1/10 light speed. >From MeVe=MpVp since 1/2 ton is converted then only 99.5 tons of propellant reach 1/10 light speed. so for a five ton payload the payload velocity calculates to be Vp=MeVe/Mp placing the calculations in to solve Vp=99.5 tons times 1/10 C/5 tons solves to Vp=9.95C/5 solves to Vp=1.99 C Tom Profession- High Speed, High Energy Physics From VM Fri Apr 7 10:11:29 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2279" "Thursday" "6" "April" "2000" "19:57:56" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "53" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2279 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e372vvm28937 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 19:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e372vuG28930; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 19:57:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14573.20148.561758.565552@darkwing.uoregon.edu> In-Reply-To: <5a.38098c7.261ea79d@aol.com> References: <5a.38098c7.261ea79d@aol.com> 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: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 19:57:56 -0700 (PDT) STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > quoting (I bolded the original text for emphasis) > Albert Einstein from the > link HREF="http://www4.district125.k12.il.us/faculty/bsparaci/sr/Einstein.html">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 partial quote ------ Let's look at the page at: http://www4.district125.k12.il.us/faculty/bsparaci/sr/ ---begin quote--- This web site was created by Dan and Bobby. The Scientific Revolution is an exciting time in the history of mankind. It is a time in which many people looked away from the church and towards logic and objectivity for the answers to their most fundamental questions about life, death, and the universe. It was, and still is, a time of great upheavals in the way men and women live their lives. The Scientific Age is an interesting time to be alive, because of great strides that are made in technology and knowledge at a rapid pace. It can be expected that the Scientific Revolution will face many of the same problems in the future as it has in the past, such as resistance to change, outdated modes of thought, and personal blind spots. We hope that this web page will enlighten you to the mystery and excitement of The Scientific Revolution. We have compiled reports on several scientists. Click the names to view them. Isaac Newton Galileo Galilei Rene Descartes Francis Bacon Albert Einstein Grace Hopper ---end quote-- Your quote is what a couple of students wrote in their report about Einstein, not Einstein's own words. From VM Fri Apr 7 10:11:29 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2370" "Friday" "7" "April" "2000" "01:44:50" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "74" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2370 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e375j9f24415 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 22:45:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e375j8n24409 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 22:45:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id s.36.4407306 (3976); Fri, 7 Apr 2000 01:44:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <36.4407306.261ecfd2@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 100 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 01:44:50 EDT In a message dated 4/6/00 8:02:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu writes: > > Your quote is what a couple of students wrote in their report about > Einstein, not Einstein's own words. > > Steve, Nonsense. Those students were probably not born when I read in 1963 Einsteins own words in his signed near deathbed confession of 1955. Proven by the copyright date on my report of 1988 stating Einstein invented the bomb as the quote says. Another of your unsubstantiated claims falls with elementary examination. My report was filed with the government disclosure document program in 1989. They (patent office)will send you a copy of the original filing for 25 cents per page (18 total) if you give them the diclosure document number from: http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexb.htm Indexda.htm(l) to read it free as it was later revised from text to web page form. I suspect, you will not read it as I said before you have no interest in verifying any thing that might contradict the nonsense you teach. The game you play is simple. You state as fact your theory (unsubstantiated claim), and let any one stating facts proving otherwise do all the proof work of documentation. I do not play your game. Get off your pedastal lazy and do some real working research :=). Begin here: Checking my math. if E(kinteic)=1/2MV^2 and E=MC^2 then 1/2MV^2=E(kinetic)=E=MC^2 The energy required to send 100 tons of propellant at 1/10 light speed is said at E(kinetic)=1/2[100 tons times (c/10)^2] E(kinetic)=1/2(100 tons times c^2/100) To find the amount of Mass to be converted to the required energy E=MC^2 solving for M is M=E/C^2 therefore replacing E with calculated E(kinetic) of 1/2(100 tons times c^2/100) therefore M= [1/2(100 tons times c^2/100)]/C^2 and clearing first then second parenthesis M= 100 tons times c^2/200C^2 and canceling C^2 therefore M=100/200 tons or M= 1/2 ton of matter to convert to energy to propel 100 tons of propellant to 1/10 light speed. >From MeVe=MpVp since 1/2 ton is converted then only 99.5 tons of propellant reach 1/10 light speed. so for a five ton payload the payload velocity calculates to be Vp=MeVe/Mp placing the calculations in to solve Vp=99.5 tons times 1/10 C/5 tons solves to Vp=9.95C/5 solves to Vp=1.99 C Tom Profession- High Speed, High Energy Physics From VM Fri Apr 7 10:11:29 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["595" "Thursday" "6" "April" "2000" "23:18:05" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "21" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 595 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e376IJ328830 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:18:19 -0700 (PDT) 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 e376IIn28824 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:18:18 -0700 (PDT) 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 e376IHs26662 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e376I6b29708; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:18:06 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14573.32157.596839.112799@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <36.4407306.261ecfd2@aol.com> References: <36.4407306.261ecfd2@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: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:18:05 -0700 (PDT) STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > Checking my math. > if E(kinteic)=1/2MV^2 > and E=MC^2 The formula for relativistic kinetic energy with respect to velocity is: K = m * ((1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) - 1) K = kinetic energy m = object mass v = object velocity c = speed of light K = 1/2 * m * v^2 is only a low-speed approximation. Relativistic kinetic energy grows without bound as an object approaches the speed of light. You definitely can't exceed the speed of light by approaching it from below. See pages 201 and following in the second edition of Taylor and Wheeler's _Spacetime Physics_. From VM Fri Apr 7 10:11:29 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["254" "Thursday" "6" "April" "2000" "23:59:18" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "10" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 254 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e376xbJ03993 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:59:37 -0700 (PDT) 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 e376xan03987 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:59:36 -0700 (PDT) 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 e376xZs04408 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:59:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e376xOF29982; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:59:24 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14573.34630.591298.540855@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <14573.32157.596839.112799@tzadkiel.efn.org> References: <36.4407306.261ecfd2@aol.com> <14573.32157.596839.112799@tzadkiel.efn.org> 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: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 23:59:18 -0700 (PDT) Steve VanDevender writes: > K = m * ((1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) - 1) Actually, for the units on that to work out right, it should be either: K = m * c^2 * ((1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) - 1) or K = m * ((1 / sqrt(1 - v^2)) - 1) (where v is a fraction of c). From VM Fri Apr 7 10:11:29 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2035" "Friday" "7" "April" "2000" "03:24:30" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "53" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2035 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e377Swi07004 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 00:28:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e377Svn06993 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 00:28:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id s.29.3710b1d (3976); Fri, 7 Apr 2000 03:24:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <29.3710b1d.261ee72e@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 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: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 03:24:30 EDT In a message dated 4/6/00 11:18:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, stevev@efn.org writes: > > K = m * ((1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) - 1) > > K = kinetic energy > m = object mass > v = object velocity > c = speed of light > > K = 1/2 * m * v^2 is only a low-speed approximation. 1/10 C is low speed so the K calculated is near exact. The relativistic effects are insignificant though not zero. > Relativistic > kinetic energy grows without bound as an object approaches the speed of > light. I agree totally. Real kinetic energy does not. You definitely can't exceed the speed of light by approaching it > from below. To be more precise you cannot see the rocket traveling at twice light speed from the below viewpoint of earth. Such velocities relativistic are limited by the equation you give to below C. The velocity I calculated was velocity real as an observer at rest on earth was not part of the problem and I did not ask what velocity relative to earth was obtained. This is proven in the following manner. At twice light speed the rocket coasts and travels a distance of 4 light years in two years ship time. Use Einstein's time dilation formula to determine the earth time and divide 4 light years distance/earth time to determine velocity relativistic. About .89C if I recall your solution with the above formula correctly. When both methods (Einstein's time dilation formula and K = m * ((1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) - 1)agree by returning the same results then the formula is proven valid as time dilation has been verified by orbiting clock experiment and your K formula has not. Prove the K formula returns valid results by agreeing with verified experiment. Show work. The v in your formula above should be subscripted relativistic to avoid being confused with velocity susbscripted real. Dropping the subscript Einstein used led to imagining velocities relativistic to be real. Imaginary real numbers and imaginary numbers are common root solution errors of relativistic formulas. Tom From VM Fri Apr 7 10:11:29 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1677" "Friday" "7" "April" "2000" "00:43:57" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "42" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1677 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e377iCT14438 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 00:44:12 -0700 (PDT) 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 e377iBn14345 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 00:44:11 -0700 (PDT) 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 e377i9s11056 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 00:44:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e377hwR30172; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 00:43:58 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14573.37309.617339.594617@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <29.3710b1d.261ee72e@aol.com> References: <29.3710b1d.261ee72e@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, 7 Apr 2000 00:43:57 -0700 (PDT) STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 4/6/00 11:18:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, stevev@efn.org > writes: > > > K = m * ((1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) - 1) > > > > K = kinetic energy > > m = object mass > > v = object velocity > > c = speed of light > > > > K = 1/2 * m * v^2 is only a low-speed approximation. > > 1/10 C is low speed so the K calculated is near exact. The relativistic > effects are insignificant though not zero. You're claiming that a smaller mass with an equal amount of kinetic energy will go faster than c. That's not what will happen; putting that amount of kinetic energy into the smaller mass makes it go closer to, but not faster than, c. > > Relativistic > > kinetic energy grows without bound as an object approaches the speed of > > light. > > I agree totally. Real kinetic energy does not. Relativistic kinetic energy _is_ real. Newtonian physics is merely a low-speed approximation to relativistic physics; the approximation breaks down when you start dealing with velocities that are significant fractions of c. If you want calculations that are accurate at any velocity and not just small ones, you need to use the relativistic formula. > To be more precise you cannot see the rocket traveling at twice light speed > from the below viewpoint of earth. Such velocities relativistic are limited > by the equation you give to below C. The velocity I calculated was velocity > real as an observer at rest on earth was not part of the problem and I did > not ask what velocity relative to earth was obtained. No observer sees the rocket traveling faster than c, not even one on the rocket. From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:53 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6036" "Friday" "7" "April" "2000" "23:10:04" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "145" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6036 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e383ARH26438 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 20:10:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e383AQn26433 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 20:10:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id s.22.42d1fb8 (7042); Fri, 7 Apr 2000 23:10:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <22.42d1fb8.261ffd0c@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 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: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 23:10:04 EDT In a message dated 4/7/00 12:48:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, stevev@efn.org writes: > STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > > In a message dated 4/6/00 11:18:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, stevev@efn. > org > > writes: > > > > > K = m * ((1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) - 1) > > > > > > K = kinetic energy > > > m = object mass > > > v = object velocity > > > c = speed of light > > > > > > K = 1/2 * m * v^2 is only a low-speed approximation. > > > > 1/10 C is low speed so the K calculated is near exact. The relativistic > > effects are insignificant though not zero. > > You're claiming that a smaller mass with an equal amount of kinetic > energy will go faster than c. That's not what will happen; putting that > amount of kinetic energy into the smaller mass makes it go closer to, > but not faster than, c. Steve, You are so close but still you get no cigar. I claim there are two different velocities (Vreal and Vrel. to be calculated for the payload with one velocity (Vrel.) no faster than C as you claim. Focus and concentrate only on the problem I gave. Chose say payload mass of 2 tons and the Vp calculates to 1/2 light speed. We know that this is so because momentum is conserved as MpVp=Pp and Pe=MeVe and since Pp=Pe then the calculation is considered consistent with universal law as momentum is conserved. This conservation occurs with any chosen mass only with the Vreal and not the relativistic velocity(Vrel.); the only one you considered and calculated to be .89C unless you also transform the values Ve,Me and Mp. If your complete transforms are correct then momentum is conserved as Perel.=Pprel. Or Pe'=Pp' with prime understood to be relativistic or rel.. Note! subscript consistency truly is difficult with a typewriter or keyboard without 1/2 space carriage returns. Boolean algebra even is prone to type errors even by me. Focus and concentrate please only on the problem given and make no conclusions like this proves such and such until all calculations are made and any errors (yours and mine a given) are corrected. > > > Relativistic > > > kinetic energy grows without bound as an object approaches the speed > of > > > light. > > > > I agree totally. Real kinetic energy does not. > > Relativistic kinetic energy _is_ real. You misunderstand the subscript real. Both velocities real and rel. are valid calculations and measurable depending on the frame of reference. Think of it like velocity of propellant given as 1/10 C. Of course this is understood to be an average velocity as some mass parts are slow and some are fast and so can be designated Vavg to calculate. Vreal=distance rocket traveled/ship time Vrel=distance rocket traveled/earth time > Newtonian physics is merely a > low-speed approximation to relativistic physics; the approximation > breaks down when you start dealing with velocities that are significant > fractions of c. Einsteinian physics does not throw out Newtonian physics but relies on them to transform measurements to Einsteinian values and so they can be transformed back to Newtonian physics. Transforms are called that because they go both ways and both ways are valid depending on the frame of reference being observer or observed. > If you want calculations that are accurate at any > velocity and not just small ones, you need to use the relativistic > formula. A point you need to consider is relativistic formula are correct not because of any accuracy. They near Newtonian physics when the part of the gamma graphed curve E Vs V can be considered and treated as linear and close to the x axis. When the curve becomes close to the c asymptote rapidly rising toward infinity (no boundry). There the effects are more pronounced and the narrow range of velocities are commonly called relativistic velocities. Focus and concentrate as this is not to be confused with velocities relativistic. > > To be more precise you cannot see the rocket traveling at twice light > speed > > from the below viewpoint of earth. Such velocities relativistic are > limited > > by the equation you give to below C. The velocity I calculated was > velocity > > real as an observer at rest on earth was not part of the problem and I > did > > not ask what velocity relative to earth was obtained. > > No observer sees the rocket traveling faster than c, not even one on the > rocket. The first part of your statement is true. The second is theory (unsubstantiated claim) stated as fact. Now I will focus and concentrate on the problem given and the proof you failed to do even when I told you how to do it. Conserving e-mail paper as you keep erasing the stated problem is not a valid excuse for you not solving it. Focus as I prove it. The rocket at twice light speed travels between two stars a distance of 4 light years. The time onboard the ship measures two years. Using Einstein's time dilation formula for the given masses, two years ship time calculates to be 4.44.. years earth time (recalled from memory). Dividing 4 light years by 4.44.... years and the velocity with respect to earth is observed on earth to be as you calculated as .89c (or .9c as I recall calculating). Label .89C as Velocity rel. Label 2C as Velocity real. Therefore an observer on the ship looks at the 4 light years distance between the stars he traveled and then looks at his calendar watch and knowing time he took to travel the distance (two years) calculates his velocity to be two C. Therefore: Proving; Vrel is valid, Vreal is valid, Both are valid, Your unsubstantiated claim "No observer sees the rocket traveling faster than c (true), not even one on the rocket (theory)" is proven invalid. and (at last) Your unsubstantiated claim (jumping to conclusions)"Energy relativistic approaches infinity(unbound) as Vrel approaches C (a true statement) then nothing can exceed light speed (theory)" is proven invalid. Lighting my cigar ;=)' Tom From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:53 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3838" "Saturday" "8" "April" "2000" "00:08:34" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "85" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3838 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e3878ok22293 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 00:08:50 -0700 (PDT) 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 e3878nn22287 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 00:08:49 -0700 (PDT) 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 e3878ls04783 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 00:08:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3878ZQ04594; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 00:08:35 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14574.56050.111458.67881@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <22.42d1fb8.261ffd0c@aol.com> References: <22.42d1fb8.261ffd0c@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, 8 Apr 2000 00:08:34 -0700 (PDT) STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 4/7/00 12:48:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, stevev@efn.org > writes: > > > STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > > > In a message dated 4/6/00 11:18:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, stevev@efn. > > org > > > writes: > > > > > > > K = m * ((1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) - 1) > > > > > > > > K = kinetic energy > > > > m = object mass > > > > v = object velocity > > > > c = speed of light > > > > > > > > K = 1/2 * m * v^2 is only a low-speed approximation. > > > > > > 1/10 C is low speed so the K calculated is near exact. The relativistic > > > effects are insignificant though not zero. > > > > You're claiming that a smaller mass with an equal amount of kinetic > > energy will go faster than c. That's not what will happen; putting that > > amount of kinetic energy into the smaller mass makes it go closer to, > > but not faster than, c. > > Steve, > You are so close but still you get no cigar. I claim there are two different > velocities (Vreal and Vrel. to be calculated for the payload with one > velocity (Vrel.) no faster than C as you claim. Focus and concentrate only on > the problem I gave. One thing that should be obvious from any study of relativistic physics is that there is no velocity any more real than any other. Conservation of momentum and energy apply in all reference frames, not just the one in which things move at some particular "Vreal". > Einsteinian physics does not throw out Newtonian physics but relies on them > to transform measurements to Einsteinian values and so they can be > transformed back to Newtonian physics. Transforms are called that because > they go both ways and both ways are valid depending on the frame of reference > being observer or observed. Relativistic physics is not a system for converting between Newtonian and relativistic formulae. Relativistic physics is its own statement of the laws of physics that predicts very different behavior than Newtonian physics for high relative velocities. For low relative velocities it turns out that Newtonian physics is a close approximation to relativistic physics. That doesn't mean you can transform any relativistic physics problem into a Newtonian one. > The rocket at twice light speed travels between two stars a distance of 4 > light years. > The time onboard the ship measures two years. Using Einstein's time dilation > formula for the given masses, two years ship time calculates to be 4.44.. > years earth time (recalled from memory). > > Dividing 4 light years by 4.44.... years and the velocity with respect to > earth is observed on earth to be as you calculated as .89c (or .9c as I > recall calculating). You continue to operate under a mistaken assumption that you can meaningfully combine measurements made in different frames. If we're in a frame in which the stars are four light-years apart, and we watch a ship travel between them while two years elapses on the shipboard clock, then we can fairly easily calculate the velocity of the ship in that frame. t'^2 = t^2 - x^2 where t' is shipboard time, t is frame time, and x is the frame distance, so if t' = 2 years and x = 4 light-years, then t is sqrt(20) or about 4.472, and the ship's velocity in that frame is (x / t) = about 0.894 c. In the rocket's frame, however, the stars aren't four light-years apart. An observer on the rocket considers the destination star to be traveling towards him at 0.894 c, and he measures the star to be 1.789 light-years away at the start of his trip. You really need to study a consistent presentation of relativistic physics like Taylor and Wheeler's _Spacetime Physics_; you're basically making several of the mistakes that beginning students of relativity theory make. From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["22068" "Saturday" "8" "April" "2000" "08:08:08" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "419" "starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 92" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 22068 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e38DBD908373 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 06:11:13 -0700 (PDT) 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 e38DBBn08363 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 06:11:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p474.gnt.com [204.49.91.90]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA18257 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 08:11:04 -0500 Message-ID: <000e01bfa15b$cf3a3ee0$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 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: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 92 Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 08:08:08 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 16:46:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Donald L Doughty To: DC-X Subject: Space Access Update #92 4/5/00 (fwd) Sender: delta-clipper-approval@world.std.com Reply-To: delta-clipper@europe.std.com Space Access Update #92 4/5/00 Copyright 2000 by Space Access Society ________________________________________________________________________ (SAS's eighth annual conference, "Space Access 2000", will be at the Holiday Inn Old Town in Scottsdale Arizona April 27-29 - see the upcoming SAU #93 or http://www.space-access.org for details. Our hotel room block guarantee ends Friday 4/7/00 - reserve now!) ________________________________________________________________________ Contents: - NASA's Proposed 2001-2005 Space Launch Initiative - Our Recommended Changes Attachment: - SAS FY 2001 Policy Recommendations (reprinted from SAU #91, 2/7/00) ________________________________________________________________________ NASA's Proposed 2001-2005 Space Launch Initiative Background NASA spent the last five years engaged in a process that was supposed to provide the data for a decision at the start of the year 2000 on the future of NASA and US commercial space transportation. The centerpiece of this process was the $1.3 billion X-33/Venturestar project. X-33's main goal was to fly a half-scale feasibility proof for the proposed "Venturestar" reusable space transport; Venturestar was aimed at meeting NASA launch requirements while also capturing enough of the US commercial (and military) launch market to get commercial investors to pay for development. The X-33/Venturestar project has failed, as discussed in detail in our last issue ( http://www.space-access.org/updates/sau91.html). The available evidence is that that Lockheed-Martin cannot build the (multilobe conformal-tanks, lifting-body) design they sold to NASA at anything near light enough weight for a practical reusable rocket space transport, even if they are allowed considerable extra time and money. Meanwhile, investor confidence in the project is conspicuously lacking; the only hope it has for "commercial" finance is an effective federal subsidy in the form of (unlikely) government loan guarantees. By last fall, NASA had come up with a plan, the ASTP (Advanced Space Transportation Plan), after collecting US industry's input via the Space Transportation Architecture Studies (STAS) then apparently ignoring this input wherever it conflicted with the agendas of the major NASA space-launch centers: the JSC/KSC Shuttle/Station establishment, and the MSFC launch technology development center. ASTP would have given JSC major Shuttle upgrades after a nominal competition with new paper "Second Generation" (IE near-term rocket- powered) reusable launcher designs, while MSFC would have gotten significant ongoing funding to develop all the new launch technologies they wanted, just as long as these technologies were so ultra-advanced "Third Generation" that they couldn't possibly provide competition for Shuttle in less than a generation. We didn't like this plan (see SAU #91, "NASA's New Plan") and neither, it seems, did the White House Office of Management and Budget, OMB - the people NASA has to justify plans to before they show up in White House budget submissions to Congress. The plan that emerged in the White House FY 2001 NASA budget proposal released in early February differs significantly from last fall's ASTP. The "Space Launch Initiative" NASA's latest five-year plan, the $4.5 billion Space Launch Initiative (see http://nais.msfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/EPS/synopsis.cgi?acqid=25421 for details) superficially addresses some of the problems with previous efforts: It calls for a goal of at least two competing commercial launch systems serving NASA needs, it partially breaks out NASA requirements into a semi-separate "NASA-Unique Systems" project, and it pays lip-service to expanding the contractor base beyond the current limited (both in numbers and in recent results - the *better* of the two remaining majors can't keep track of Station costs or Station hardware) post-consolidation field. We do not question the good intentions of the people who've come up with this plan. But recent history has made plain that NASA is at heart, like it or not, a massive government bureaucracy, and good intentions seldom beat bureaucratic mass. Intentions entirely aside, NASA's new plan is still fatally flawed, in that it's based on two fundamentally wrong assumptions: - One, that yet another Government-sponsored attempt to force convergence between NASA space transportation needs and US commercial launch needs (in the hope that NASA requirements might be met with commercial development funding) is either practical or desirable. It is neither. Both previous such efforts (the pre-Challenger shutdown of the US ELV (Expendable Launch Vehicle) industry in favor of Shuttle, and the X- 33/Venturestar project) have been practical disasters, in significant part because NASA and commercial requirements in terms of system performance, political control, staffing, and costs are fundamentally incompatible. Commercial launch customers were switching to Ariane even before loss of Challenger shut down NASA Shuttle for two years, and there was no real prospect of unsubsidized commercial investment in "Venturestar" even before the current technical/management problems surfaced. Both previous such efforts have also been disasters in that, despite the improbability of success for the government's repeated attempts at NASA-commercial convergence, the mere fact of a government-sponsored effort to seize a majority of the commercial launch market deterred commercial investment in competing systems. What sane commercial investor wants to compete against the government? This has been a significant factor in the radical decline in US share of the international commercial launch market. There have been (with considerable encouragement from DOD) some cautious investments in improved commercial ELV's, enough to at least stop the bleeding and stabilize US launch market share somewhat below fifty percent, but investments in the sort of radically cheaper launch systems that might allow the US to start regaining lost market share have been few and far between, with no projects financed through to completion yet. Odds are, if NASA is allowed to proceed with yet another five-year plan to shotgun-wed NASA and commercial launch requirements, the results will be both another expensive failure, and also another five years wasted for the US companies that want to leapfrog current ELV technology and bring the US a much larger share of the growing international launch market. - The second wrong assumption underlying this latest five-year plan is that meeting NASA's internal space launch needs should be the central goal of NASA space launch development efforts. This is not just inference on our part; NASA comes right out and say that the primary customer for this effort is NASA, in the "Launch Initiative Program Description" at http://std.msfc.nasa.gov/progdesc.pdf, and in a quote attributed to the NASA Administrator at the Advanced Space Transportation Plan rollout in Huntsville last October: "The customer is NASA" - IE, the NASA Shuttle/Station establishment, representing as it does half of NASA's overall budget, by far the largest NASA consumer of space launch and by far the largest bureaucratic political power center within the agency. The fact is, though, that the commercial space market surpassed the total of government space business back in the mid-nineties, and world commercial space continues to grow fast while government space is essentially flat. Aerospace exports are the largest single area of US trade surplus - but this surplus is shrinking. NASA is supposed to be supporting US commercial (and defense) advanced aerospace vehicle needs, not just internal NASA agendas. To date, and in this new five-year plan too, NASA is failing this task miserably - apparently doing their damndest to ignore it entirely, where they can't subsume it to their own internal needs. A US share of a fast growing world market that's barely holding on in the forties is too important to subordinate to NASA bureaucratic turf defense. We don't argue that NASA's internal space launch needs should be ignored, mind. All arguments about high cost versus limited returns for the current Shuttle/Station program aside, we can't stop flying astronauts into space without significant negative effect on national morale - the Challenger standdown was a national trauma; the ongoing manned space program remains a major national status symbol. This country is, however, under no obligation to always conduct this program as expensively as we do now. The fiction that NASA space launch needs can be shotgun-wedded to commercial requirements has allowed repeated attempts by the Shuttle/Station establishment to ignore realistic examination of cost versus capabilities in pursuing function-for-function replacements for Shuttle. (Shuttle's large "downmass" capability in particular needs scrutiny - it's the main thing a (considerably cheaper) combination of a smaller "space taxi" plus heavy-lift expendables can't provide, and it is used so seldom that rational analysis will likely show that it'd be far cheaper to either build new copies of the occasional large "downmass" payloads, or leave them in orbit between uses, rather than pay to continue this rarely used capability.) Policy Change Recommendations NASA must be instructed to cease efforts to square the circle; this latest shotgun wedding between NASA and commercial advanced space launch development must be called off. Yes, NASA needs to devote a significant level of effort to supporting their own Shuttle/Station establishment's launch needs - but they also need to support US industry's need for technological advances that will allow significant market share (and national security) gains. Most important of all, given the NASA Shuttle/Station establishment's demonstrated ability to bend all available agency resources toward its internal agendas, a firewall is needed between the NASA-specific and the commercial advanced launch support efforts, a very solid firewall. On the assumption that $4.5 billion over five years to meet national space launch needs is actually on the table, we recommend: - $3 billion of this be formally committed to supporting NASA's internal need to back up (and eventually to replace) Shuttle. Half this amount should continue to go to the "NASA-Unique Systems" project, in essence an effort to combine various Crew Return Vehicle and Crew Transfer Vehicle efforts into an overall "Space Taxi" project aimed at a flexible general-purpose space transport capable of launch via Shuttle, via EELV-Heavy, or via future as-yet undefined commercial reusable systems. NASA should build the F-250 crew-cab pickup of space, rather than another eighteen-wheeler Winnebago. The other half should be divided between "Space Taxi" integration with EELV (with emphasis on subscale demonstration of reliable emergency vehicle separation and recovery, rather than on extensive "man-rating" changes to EELV to marginally increase booster reliability) and such other NASA-unique systems as NASA deems appropriate - Station small package delivery, subscale reusable flyback booster demos, et cetera. - $1.5 billion, or $300 million a year, should be committed to support the US commercial space launch sector, via NASA "Future-X" and/or via similar organizations under DOD - DARPA, AFRL Phillips, and ONR all come to mind. NASA's current budget submission calls for shutting down "Future-X" after current projects are complete; if NASA genuinely doesn't want the job of supporting US commercial and defense advanced space launch needs, other agencies are available. Splitting available funds among more than one sponsoring agency makes sense anyway, in that competition concentrates the bureaucratic mind wonderfully. The general approach should be to support construction and intensive testing of actual hardware at the edge of the current practical state- of-the-art, in ground tests and flight demonstrations of individual subsystems and integrated vehicles. In order to spread the eggs among many baskets and to encourage diverse competing approaches,the maximum size for any individual project should be what NASA currently calls "Pathfinder" class, one to two hundred million dollars total, with many smaller projects also included in the mix. In order to expand the potential reusable aerospace-frame vendor base beyond the current post-consolidation pair, the risk of awarding significant hardware contracts to unproven or startup companies should be accepted. (We note in passing that NASA has effectively done exactly this in awarding the "Pathfinder" class X-34 project to Orbital Sciences - when OSC finishes X-34, they'll be in good position to credibly pursue a commercial RLV venture. We approve, and we'd like to see this precedent expanded to other companies.) (We also note that given the recent track record of the established majors, going with startups won't likely increase risk very much.) Finally, and very important, projects should be selected on the basis of providing practical advances in reusable space launch systems of near-term use to US commercial and defense interests. "NASA requirements" should be kept on the far side of an inviolable firewall. NASA manned space will eventually end up using systems developed under this program, but given their record of protecting bureaucratic turf at expense of the national interest, NASA launch customers *must* not be allowed to interfere with this program. *end* ________________________________________________________________________ Space Access Society's sole purpose is to promote radical reductions in the cost of reaching space. You may redistribute this Update in any medium you choose, as long as you do it unedited in its entirety. ________________________________________________________________________ Space Access Society http://www.space-access.org space.access@space-access.org "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the Solar System" - Robert A. Heinlein ________________________________________________________________________ ----------Text Attachment---------- (We originally published the following NASA advanced launch development policy analysis and recommendations on February seventh, 2000, the same day NASA unveiled its FY 2001 budget request, which includes initiation of a $4.5 billion, five-year "Space Launch Initiative". We've seen nothing in that plan to radically alter our conclusions and recommendations, and much to confirm them.) Eleven Months Till 2001, And We're Still Stuck On This Rock - Now What? SAS FY 2001 Policy Recommendations - On NASA X-33: If Lockheed-Martin truly believes X-33 is still relevant to anything other than saving corporate face, let them prove it by paying for all additional costs from this point forward. NASA should support them in this if Lockheed-Martin chooses to continue, but without spending any further taxpayer dollars on the project. If indeed Lockheed-Martin is serious about Venturestar as a genuine commercial project, and if indeed they believe X-33 still has any relevance to the much-changed Venturestar design, let them put their own money where their mouth is. Otherwise, it's time to shut X-33 down as being an expensive lesson in what not to do in pursuing cheaper space launch. - On Federal loan guarantees for space launch projects: We oppose any measure that would have the effect of picking and subsidizing a "winner" or winners from among the variety of companies planning low-cost launch projects. All such measures we have seen to date have, for all practical purposes, been aimed at some specific company. We do not oppose Federal support for commercial low-cost launch ventures in general, but we have yet to see legislation introduced that would provide such support on a level playing field. - On Federal support for development of low-cost reusable launch technology: Available funds should be increased modestly, should be focussed on a variety of relatively small projects aimed at flight- demonstrating a variety of different near-term payoff approaches, should not be confined to projects proposed by the existing major firms, should not be allocated by just one government agency, and should be allocated by organizations and to organizations willing to pay attention to past lessons on successfully advancing the aerospace state-of-the-art via X-vehicle projects. Specifically, we would like to see more funding for NASA "Future-X" flight demonstrator projects, and also for similar projects in appropriate (IE not hidebound-bureaucratized) agencies under DOD. Competition is good - the recent policy of one specialty, one center, eliminating intra-government competition, has greatly reduced incentives to succeed, by reducing the danger of losing funding to another agency in the event of failure. Instead, agencies have taken to defending failure by claiming the job was impossible anyway. Absent competition, who can prove otherwise? Ideally, we would like to see, between NASA and DOD over the next decade, one new start per year of a one-to-two hundred million dollar-class reusable launch flight demonstrator project, with the goal of giving all credible players (and not just the existing majors) a chance to show what they can do. There are a wide variety of credible approaches to cheap space transportation. But commercial investors so far will not pay to see which might fly and which won't; the payoff is too uncertain and too long-term. The Federal government can, for no more per-year than NASA spent on X-33, separate the wheat from the chaff, to the point where a few years from now commercial investors (and government procurement officials) will be able to make sensible low-risk decisions on low-cost reusable space vehicles. - Shuttle: The NASA Space Shuttle should be maintained and operated on missions of national importance until its variety of functions can be replaced by various more specialized lower-cost vehicles. Routine NASA space transportation services should end up commercially contracted for, just as NASA currently procures routine air transportation services. NASA isn't allowed to operate its own airline - over the long term, the agency should also be moved away from operating its own spaceline. In the short term, a flexibly-launched (on EELV, Shuttle, or future reusables) Crew/Cargo Transfer Vehicle (CCTV) should be rapidly developed as a supplement to and potential emergency replacement for Shuttle, in order to, at acceptable cost, assure NASA's ability to meet its manned-space commitments. Shuttle upgrades should be limited to addressing immediate safety concerns and to providing operating cost and/or capability improvements that will pay for themselves in the short term. The current prohibition on Shuttle competing with commercial launch providers should be continued indefinitely, to avoid disrupting an emerging industry that is currently fragile and in the long run is vital to the nation's economic security and national defense. - NASA's massive "manned space" Shuttle-Station establishment in general needs to be brought to heel. They currently consume half of NASA's overall budget while providing at-best dubious results. Meanwhile they far too often act as the hypertrophied tail wagging the NASA dog. For one example, the nominally separate branch of NASA that deals with advancing space transportation technology seems totally unable to make plans that don't give priority to the manned space empire's requirements over those of US industry and US defense agencies. X-33 and now ISTP both suffered badly from this. - NASA's space technology centers need to pay far more attention to the practical needs of US industry. On March 3, 1915, the Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (later the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics or NACA) was established by a rider to the Naval Appropriations Act, "..to supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight, with a view of their practical solution." *Practical* solution. Workable solutions *now*, not ultra-advanced whizbangs in twenty years. A working rocket engineer recently told us he has file cabinets full of old NACA reports that he uses every day - they're models of concise, accurate, useful information. He says that reports from the first few years after NACA became NASA are still useful, but after the early sixties things went downhill, badly. NACA was vital to the success of the US aviation industry. To the struggling US low-cost launch industry, today's NASA is no such asset. One example of the sort of work NASA ought to be doing but isn't: Most current rocket engines were intended to be thrown away after one flight, and thus reuse of them has not been explored and documented. Reports on the practical reusability of various engines - relight procedures, throttling potential, number of cycles, minutes of burn-time, wear and recommended maintenance intervals for various parts - would be immensely useful to reusable launch designers, however tedious and unglamorous they'd be to generate. NASA's spaceflight technology centers have lost sight of this "NACA" practical industry support function, and need to be led back toward it. If they prefer sexy ultra-advanced decades-off technology work so much they still refuse to do the NACA job, the task (and the funding) should be given to someone else. *end* From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1358" "Saturday" "8" "April" "2000" "11:37:38" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "30" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1358 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e38FeFr20467 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 08:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e38FeEn20460 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 08:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.96.40]) by mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000408154008.CERJ14374.mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:40:08 +0000 Message-ID: <38EF5242.67AFD49@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <36.4407306.261ecfd2@aol.com> <14573.32157.596839.112799@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 , starship Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 11:37:38 -0400 Steve VanDevender wrote: > See pages 201 and following in the second edition of Taylor and > Wheeler's _Spacetime Physics_. Steve, For the sake of anyone who sees these pages, please find a better book to recommend. I bought a copy about a year ago and soon threw it away. A friend of mine agreed with me that this is not a book of science, it is a book of dogma (INVARIANT INTERVAL), chiseled in stone, and supported mostly by comments, the gist of which is, "believe it because we say so" and "everybody knows . . .", and extending to the insidious technique of training the reader to defend its precepts against logical argument. It also wasted very extensive space on pointless discussions of paradoxes. This book taught me almost nothing about physics, but was quite enlightening in brainwashing and propaganda techniques. Even the opening parable of the Daytimers and the Nighttimers concludes wrongly (that they would be in agreement: they won't, because they will still be using different references). Frankly, I've read religious tracts that were more intellectually appealing. I am not a scientist, but I do consider myself a critical thinker, and your continued support of this book is undermining my estimation of your own credibility. There are better books out there, I'm sure; please find a different one to recommend. Curtis L. Manges From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1732" "Saturday" "8" "April" "2000" "15:46:45" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "47" "RE: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1732 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e38Kn5302616 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 13:49:05 -0700 (PDT) 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 e38Kn3n02607 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 13:49:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p466.gnt.com [204.49.91.82]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id PAA07378; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:48:52 -0500 Message-ID: <001d01bfa19b$c11820d0$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: <38EF5242.67AFD49@worldnet.att.net> 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: "'Curtis Manges'" , "'Steve VanDevender'" , "'starship'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:46:45 -0500 Curtis Manges wrote: > > Steve VanDevender wrote: > > > See pages 201 and following in the second edition of Taylor and > > Wheeler's _Spacetime Physics_. > > Steve, > > For the sake of anyone who sees these pages, please find a > better book to > recommend. I bought a copy about a year ago and soon threw it > away. [clip] Was that an off the cuff bash, an emotional bash, or just a plain stupid one? Since you obviously haven't even tried to find out who the people are who wrote the book, it might help you to know that they are the preeminent scientists in the field of relativistic physics. Even a simple search turns up more papers by these men than almost any others. Not just rehashes either, but critical new theories and basic research. If you are going to bash someone, at least learn who it is you are bashing before you go and put your foot in your mouth. > I am not a scientist, but I do consider myself a critical > thinker, and your > continued support of this book is undermining my estimation > of your own > credibility. There are better books out there, I'm sure; please find a > different one to recommend. Please be so kind to recommend one since you are so certain of this subject.... L. Parker _____________________________________________________________ "Who is this that darkens council by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee and answer thou me... Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? Or has thou walked in the recesses of the depth? Or hast thou seen the doors of deepest darkness? ...Hast thou comprehended the expanse of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. " The Book of Job From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1957" "Saturday" "8" "April" "2000" "16:17:59" "-0500" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "43" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1957 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e38LN0E07426 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 14:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh105.infi.net (fh105.infi.net [209.97.16.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e38LMwn07421 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 14:22:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oemcomputer (PSGLB104-05.splitrock.net [209.252.103.101]) by fh105.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA04360 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 17:22:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200004082122.RAA04360@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: Re: FTL travel Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 16:17:59 -0500 > Was that an off the cuff bash, an emotional bash, or just a plain stupid > one? Since you obviously haven't even tried to find out who the people are > who wrote the book, it might help you to know that they are the preeminent > scientists in the field of relativistic physics. What your status is does not justify the use of dogmatism. I am sorry, but I have this book, and have read it quite thoroughly, and I agree with Curtis...it does contain dogma. The basic knowledge the book gives is good, but the way it is presented can leave something to be desired. Edwin Taylor and John Wheeler are great scientists, yes. But they are not gods. For one of them to say "this is possible/not possible because some numbers say so or I say so" is not a professional attitude. What they _should_ have said, was something like this: "we don't think this-that-the other is possible, because of this theory and the evidence which supports said theory." > Even a simple search turns > up more papers by these men than almost any others. Not just rehashes > either, but critical new theories and basic research. That is all fine and well. But there is more to life that idly theorizing and tabulating. One should strive to conduct new experiments to find out how things _really_ work, not how we like to think they work. I don't know if superluminal travel is possible, but it is certainly more worthy of investigation that a so-called "theory of everything." > If you are going to > bash someone, at least learn who it is you are bashing before you go and put > your foot in your mouth. I didn't think he was bashing anyone...just the way the book was written. Example: I can certainly disagree with a friend, but still be their friend nonetheless. There is a difference. > Please be so kind to recommend one since you are so certain of this > subject.... I can do that: _Relativity_ , Albert Einstein. I found it quite enlightening. --Kyle R. Mcallister From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3929" "Saturday" "8" "April" "2000" "15:45:02" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "69" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3929 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e38MjMU18509 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:45:22 -0700 (PDT) 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 e38MjGn18499 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:45:16 -0700 (PDT) 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 e38MjEs07722 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:45:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e38Mj6v07554; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:45:06 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14575.46702.55819.527764@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <38EF5242.67AFD49@worldnet.att.net> References: <36.4407306.261ecfd2@aol.com> <14573.32157.596839.112799@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38EF5242.67AFD49@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: Re: FTL travel Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Curtis Manges writes: > Steve VanDevender wrote: > > > See pages 201 and following in the second edition of Taylor and > > Wheeler's _Spacetime Physics_. > > Steve, > > For the sake of anyone who sees these pages, please find a better book to > recommend. I bought a copy about a year ago and soon threw it away. A friend > of mine agreed with me that this is not a book of science, it is a book of > dogma (INVARIANT INTERVAL), chiseled in stone, and supported mostly by > comments, the gist of which is, "believe it because we say so" and > "everybody knows . . .", and extending to the insidious technique of > training the reader to defend its precepts against logical argument. It also > wasted very extensive space on pointless discussions of paradoxes. This book > taught me almost nothing about physics, but was quite enlightening in > brainwashing and propaganda techniques. Even the opening parable of the > Daytimers and the Nighttimers concludes wrongly (that they would be in > agreement: they won't, because they will still be using different > references). Frankly, I've read religious tracts that were more > intellectually appealing. I think I know where you're coming from, to the extent that I've seen you express support for "alternative" physical theories like autodynamics. I think _Spacetime Physics_ expresses the formulation of relativity that is in mainstream physical thinking, and its explanations are much clearer for beginning students than those in other texts I've seen. It's no more dogmatic than any other physics text I've read; what you call dogma I see as emphasizing the simple fundamental ideas behind relativity theory. Invariance of spacetime interval in relativity is just as fundamental an idea as the invariance of distance in Euclidean geometry; the parable of the daytimers and nighttimers is meant to emphasize that while you can choose different coordinate systems in which the same location has different coordinates, there are geometrical invariants that apply to any of coordinate systems one might choose. Similarly, in different relativistic frames, one measures different coordinates for the same events, but the spacetime intervals between events that one obtains from those different coordinates is the same in all frames. And since a great source of confusion in students who are learning relativity are things like the seeming twin paradox, spending time on explaining why the seeming paradoxes aren't really paradoxes makes a lot of sense to me. > I am not a scientist, but I do consider myself a critical thinker, and your > continued support of this book is undermining my estimation of your own > credibility. There are better books out there, I'm sure; please find a > different one to recommend. I think anyone who studies the history of science knows that while many scientists in a particular time think they have the definitive laws of physics, what science does over time is obtain an increasingly precise understanding of the underlying laws of nature. Newtonian physics was successful for so long because every experiment that was possible to do during its reign confirmed its results; the major hurdle relativistic physics had to overcome to be accepted was obtaining the experimental proof that showed it worked better than Newtonian physics in the domains that previous experiments had been unable to test. If something better than relativity is to come along, to be accepted it will need to make predictions measurably different than relativity, and then have those predictions be proven by experiment. I don't promote relativistic physics because I think it's the be-all and end-all of physical theories; I promote relativistic physics because it's clearly the best experimentally-verified theory we have now. I'm willing to change my mind when something better comes along, but I haven't seen the better thing yet. From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["160" "Sunday" "9" "April" "2000" "13:44:25" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "11" "Re: starship-design: query.Opps" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 160 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e39Hieg02290 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 10:44:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e39Hidn02285 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 10:44:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.5.) id z.62.24ec0f2 (4262); Sun, 9 Apr 2000 13:44:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <62.24ec0f2.26221b79@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Unknown 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: query.Opps Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 13:44:25 EDT In a message dated 4/6/00 9:10:53 PM, STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes: > > >Kelly your good links were on target for theoretical physics. Glad to help. ;) Kelly From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3827" "Sunday" "9" "April" "2000" "15:48:39" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "76" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3827 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e39JpMk24836 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 12:51:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.49]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e39JpKn24831 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 12:51:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.96.158]) by mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000409195114.YCUB20062.mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 19:51:14 +0000 Message-ID: <38F0DE97.DC299C91@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <200004082122.RAA04360@fh105.infi.net> 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: "Kyle R. Mcallister" , starship Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 15:48:39 -0400 "Kyle R. Mcallister" wrote: > > Was that an off the cuff bash, an emotional bash, or just a plain stupid > > one? Since you obviously haven't even tried to find out who the people > are > > who wrote the book, it might help you to know that they are the > preeminent > > scientists in the field of relativistic physics. > > What your status is does not justify the use of dogmatism. I am sorry, but > I have this book, and have read it quite thoroughly, and I agree with > Curtis...it does contain dogma. The basic knowledge the book gives is good, > but the way it is presented can leave something to be desired. Edwin Taylor > and John Wheeler are great scientists, yes. But they are not gods. For one > of them to say "this is possible/not possible because some numbers say so > or I say so" is not a professional attitude. What they _should_ have said, > was something like this: "we don't think this-that-the other is possible, > because of this theory and the evidence which supports said theory." > > > Even a simple search turns > > up more papers by these men than almost any others. Not just rehashes > > either, but critical new theories and basic research. > > That is all fine and well. But there is more to life that idly theorizing > and tabulating. One should strive to conduct new experiments to find out > how things _really_ work, not how we like to think they work. I don't know > if superluminal travel is possible, but it is certainly more worthy of > investigation that a so-called "theory of everything." > > > If you are going to > > bash someone, at least learn who it is you are bashing before you go and > put > > your foot in your mouth. > > I didn't think he was bashing anyone...just the way the book was written. > Example: I can certainly disagree with a friend, but still be their friend > nonetheless. There is a difference. > > > Please be so kind to recommend one since you are so certain of this > > subject.... > > I can do that: _Relativity_ , Albert Einstein. I found it quite > enlightening. > > --Kyle R. Mcallister Thank you, Kyle; I'll try it. Thanks also for your more moderate response. To clarify further, what chased me off was primarily the supercilious tone of the book. This is exemplified by a statement very early in it which says, more or less, "you don't need to know how this works, you can start using it now." This is in contrast to the tone of the course materials I used in getting my associate degree in electrical engineering; the tone in those was as one adult to another, and things were explained step by step in such a way that, when you finished the course, if you forgot a formula, you could derive it again for yourself on the spot. Of course, I admit that such treatment may have been outside the scope of Taylor & Wheeler's book. As to these people's preeminence in their field, that is not to be assumed as an automatic qualification for being a teacher, nor is it an excuse for dogmatism. As well, we have to be careful to remember the role of politics and money in science and academia, as Tom (not to mention NASA) has been reminding us lately. A lot of the preeminent scientists have their life's careers invested in supporting their favorite theories, and they (and their supporters) tend to react vehemently to even the slightest criticism of same. This is politics, not science. We obviously have yet to finish what's been started, and our understanding of physics may change radically in the coming years. Work with what you know works, yes, but don't be afraid to honestly evaluate new ideas, even if they threaten your old favorites. This is how we grow, and the term "growing pains" encompasses this. It can hurt very much to have to start over from scratch, if that's what it takes, but the willingness to do so is a mark of maturity. From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1728" "Sunday" "9" "April" "2000" "16:10:11" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "42" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1728 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e39KAsQ28426 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 13:10:54 -0700 (PDT) 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 e39KArn28421 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 13:10:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 7.2f.3a9ba77 (3964); Sun, 9 Apr 2000 16:10:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2f.3a9ba77.26223da3@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 100 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com From: STAR1SHIP@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stk@sunherald.infi.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 16:10:11 EDT In a message dated 4/8/00 2:23:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time, stk@sunherald.infi.net writes: > > I didn't think he was bashing anyone...just the way the book was written. > Example: I can certainly disagree with a friend, but still be their friend > nonetheless. There is a difference. Hi Kyle, As I recall Relativity was Einstein's theory not Edwin Teller's So the authority (authorship) belongs to Albert E. Many consider Ed Teller to be the father of the atomic bomb. I suspect from eye witness reports that Teller was the cuckolded husband of a bastard child (atomic bomb) fathered by Einstein. Edward Teller only worked on the Manhattan project. No factual evidence beyond hearsay that he ever knew how it worked has been found. Do not know if that is the correct name or the same man Steve trusts but does not verify. In any case who is Wheeler and what new equations did he ever add to or claim to add to Einstein's relativity theory SR or GR? > > Please be so kind to recommend one since you are so certain of this > > subject.... > > I can do that: _Relativity_ , Albert Einstein. I found it quite > enlightening. For a begginner like Steve I recommend "The Layman's Guide to Relativity" I read in junior high. Steve has much catching up to do. Einstein's published letters to Burtrand Russell (mathmetician) are also recommended. His personal unedited English writing style in other first rough drafts I prefer does take much getting used to but is unmistakable and crystal clear when syntax and other grammatical errors common to a second tongue (language)are accounted for. Pause from discussion... Tax time :=( see you responders after April 15th. Tom > > --Kyle R. Mcallister > From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7547" "Sunday" "9" "April" "2000" "20:09:39" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "140" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7547 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e3A0Cfw09204 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 17:12:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.51]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e3A0Cen09198 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 17:12:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.96.36]) by mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000410001233.PFMM12683.mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 00:12:33 +0000 Message-ID: <38F11BC3.BB1D7EF3@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <36.4407306.261ecfd2@aol.com> <14573.32157.596839.112799@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38EF5242.67AFD49@worldnet.att.net> <14575.46702.55819.527764@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 , starship Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 20:09:39 -0400 Steve VanDevender wrote: > I think I know where you're coming from, to the extent that I've seen > you express support for "alternative" physical theories like > autodynamics. > > I think _Spacetime Physics_ expresses the formulation of relativity that > is in mainstream physical thinking, and its explanations are much > clearer for beginning students than those in other texts I've seen. > It's no more dogmatic than any other physics text I've read; that's scary . . . > what you > call dogma I see as emphasizing the simple fundamental ideas behind > relativity theory. Invariance of spacetime interval in relativity is > just as fundamental an idea as the invariance of distance in Euclidean > geometry; the parable of the daytimers and nighttimers is meant to > emphasize that while you can choose different coordinate systems in > which the same location has different coordinates, there are geometrical > invariants that apply to any of coordinate systems one might choose. Sure, polar vs. cartesian, and the day- and nighttimers _will_ agree on the _distance_ to the point in question, but they will _still_ argue about its _location_, because they still have differing compass references, one magnetic and one celestial. Sorry I had to throw that in, but the authors should have caught it. > Similarly, in different relativistic frames, one measures different > coordinates for the same events, but the spacetime intervals between > events that one obtains from those different coordinates is the same in > all frames. I understand this concept as presented, but I have a problem with it -- see below > And since a great source of confusion in students who are > learning relativity are things like the seeming twin paradox, spending > time on explaining why the seeming paradoxes aren't really paradoxes > makes a lot of sense to me. I'll buy that, but I seem to recall them presenting some paradoxes which they admitted to being insolvable. I could be wrong on this, though. > I think anyone who studies the history of science knows that while many > scientists in a particular time think they have the definitive laws of > physics, what science does over time is obtain an increasingly precise > understanding of the underlying laws of nature. Newtonian physics was > successful for so long because every experiment that was possible to do > during its reign confirmed its results; the major hurdle relativistic > physics had to overcome to be accepted was obtaining the experimental > proof that showed it worked better than Newtonian physics in the domains > that previous experiments had been unable to test. of course . . . > If something better than relativity is to come along, to be accepted it > will need to make predictions measurably different than relativity, and > then have those predictions be proven by experiment. harder yet, it'll have to overcome money (private, public, and institutional) and politics (governmental and academic). > I don't promote > relativistic physics because I think it's the be-all and end-all of > physical theories; I promote relativistic physics because it's clearly > the best experimentally-verified theory we have now. I'm willing to > change my mind when something better comes along, but I haven't seen > the better thing yet. Could you comment, please, on Gaasenbeek's work? ( www.rideau.net/~gaasbeek/index.html#contents ) Like I say, I'm not a scientist, but I like this better than Autodynamics. The reason I liked both of the above has to do with the problem I mentioned earlier, about the invariance of interval. The problem is, that I don't think it's right, and both AD and Gaasenbeek's theories do away with its resulting paradoxes, time dilation, etc. Let me explain as best I can. Time is not a property of matter; if it were, we could answer the question, "How many minutes are in that glass of water?" Time, to me, is strictly history, and cannot be properly related to anything physical, either matter or space; it's merely an intellectual construct used to relate events chronologically. Note that, in a universe with only one event, there is no use for the concept of time. Since matter takes up space, those two are related, but just for fun, consider that in a universe with only one object, there would be no use for the concept of space (and yes, I know that this object would have to be dimensionless and therefor only theoretical). Space, therefor, is our way of relating objects physically, similarly to the way time relates them chronologically. Strictly aside, I'll throw energy in with matter and space, but I will now indicate that time still doesn't belong with them, or else you could answer the question, "How many seconds are there in a watt?" Now, Lorentz (I'm going to blame him here, because _Spacetime Physics_ said it was his idea) took a concept which dates back to prehistory: that distance can be _thought of_ in terms of time ("How far to the next oasis?" "Half a day on foot.") and applied the Pythagorean theorem to the combination, getting his invariant interval as the result. Note the emphasis: _thought of_. Just because time and space can be related to one another (by the necessary inclusion of a velocity term) _does not_, to me, mean that the two can be _substituted_; they are two altogether different things. It's like, say, vitamin C in food; you could make up tables showing that so many tomatoes have the same amount as so many grapefruit, but you wouldn't want to substitute grapefruit for the tomatoes in your marinara sauce. And yes, that's a sloppy analogy, but you are grinning, aren't you? So you can see the problem I have with relativistic physics, and the appeal that AD (or, better) Gaasenbeek's ideas have for me. To me, they explain the universe more logically. Take two examples I recall from Taylor & Wheeler: one states that a ship going in a straight line will take longer, at the same velocity, than one going zig-zag; another states that a ship doing a round trip at constant velocity will take longer going out than it will coming back. I'm sorry, folks, but this just seems schizophrenic to me. A big part of the problem, as I see it, is linguistic. Look at the everyday references to 'time' in our language: we speak of time as a corporeal commodity which we can buy, save, lose, trade, and of course, never have enough of. But since time isn't physical, this all amounts to linguistic garbage; we're speaking of something in terms which cannot apply to it. We allow such garbage into our linguistic concepts because it's convenient, we forget that it's garbage, and then we unthinkingly corrupt other concepts with this convenient garbage. It's like programming a computer with corrupted algorithms. What makes this so dangerous is that it is now known that the _words_ we use actually affect our thought processes, the very way our brains work, meaning that, for us to carry corrupted concepts in our language causes our brains to dysfunction. Now, here's one that'll really ruffle some feathers. This was an idea I had wanted to follow up myself, but I doubt I could handle the math, and the scope of the research is likely beyond me as well, but . . . Limiting the topic to space-time physics, relativistic physics, whatever you want to call it, what would you have if you went through all the pertinent equations and removed all "time" terms from them? Think about that one for a while, while I apply some refractory ceramics to my email in-box. Keep looking up, Curtis From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4640" "Sunday" "9" "April" "2000" "20:52:42" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "91" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4640 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e3A3qpi15452 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 20:52:52 -0700 (PDT) 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 e3A3qpn15442 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 20:52:51 -0700 (PDT) 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 e3A3qns06863 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 20:52:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3A3qhQ16174; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 20:52:43 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14577.20490.501000.9062@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <38F11BC3.BB1D7EF3@worldnet.att.net> References: <36.4407306.261ecfd2@aol.com> <14573.32157.596839.112799@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38EF5242.67AFD49@worldnet.att.net> <14575.46702.55819.527764@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38F11BC3.BB1D7EF3@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: Re: FTL travel Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 20:52:42 -0700 (PDT) Curtis Manges writes: > > I think _Spacetime Physics_ expresses the formulation of relativity that > > is in mainstream physical thinking, and its explanations are much > > clearer for beginning students than those in other texts I've seen. > > It's no more dogmatic than any other physics text I've read; > > that's scary . . . I suspect that if physics texts contained the amount of philosophical hand-wringing needed to satisfy you, they'd be twice as big and even harder to read. > Sure, polar vs. cartesian, and the day- and nighttimers _will_ agree > on the _distance_ to the point in question, but they will _still_ > argue about its _location_, because they still have differing compass > references, one magnetic and one celestial. Sorry I had to throw that > in, but the authors should have caught it. I don't see anything in Taylor and Wheeler's discussion that says that the point is to find a way to agree about the location of something; the point is to find relationships between the possible locations that different observers measure. Of course the daytimers and nighttimers measure different locations, and they're not trying to convince you they shouldn't; however, there is a simple way to relate the different locations measured by the daytimers and nighttimers. Similarly, one measures different spacetime coordinates for events in different relativistic reference frames, yet there are predictable relationships between the coordinates in different frames based on the relationships between the frames. > > Similarly, in different relativistic frames, one measures different > > coordinates for the same events, but the spacetime intervals between > > events that one obtains from those different coordinates is the same in > > all frames. > > I understand this concept as presented, but I have a problem with it -- see below You know, it doesn't matter whether you have a problem with it or not. Lots of people have problems, conceptual or philosophical, with physical theories; theories aren't out there because a mythical conspiracy of powerful scientists are pushing those over ones that you might feel better about. Theories survive because they appear to model the universe better than the known alternatives. Progress in physics has allowed us to explore phenomena well outside what humans can directly experience, and it turns out that the universe doesn't work the way your "common sense" makes you think it should in a lot of ways. > I'll buy that, but I seem to recall them presenting some paradoxes > which they admitted to being insolvable. I could be wrong on this, > though. Cite one. > > I don't promote > > relativistic physics because I think it's the be-all and end-all of > > physical theories; I promote relativistic physics because it's clearly > > the best experimentally-verified theory we have now. I'm willing to > > change my mind when something better comes along, but I haven't seen > > the better thing yet. > > Could you comment, please, on Gaasenbeek's work? ( > www.rideau.net/~gaasbeek/index.html#contents ) Like I say, I'm not a scientist, but > I like this better than Autodynamics. Again, it doesn't matter whether you like it or not; what matters is whether Gaasenbeek's theories make measurably different predictions from conventional theories, and whether those predictions can be confirmed by experiment. >From what I can tell Gaasenbeek believes there are some kind of "helical particle wave" phemonena that he thinks explains various physical phenomena better than relativity. However, even he seems to admit that there's no experimental proof for his idea, and from what I can tell he isn't even making substantially different predictions than conventional theories, just trying to explain them in a different way. Two theories that make the same predictions in different ways aren't really different theories. However, scientists have tended to prefer the theory that uses the least extra stuff to explain what's going on. As for your rather lengthy discussion of the nature of time, I can say a few things: You apparently don't understand the idea of spacetime interval well enough to properly criticize it. Saying that it doesn't make sense to you (and using a lot of sloppy analogies to show that you don't get the idea) isn't a criticism of the idea. Misstating what Taylor and Wheeler say about spacetime interval isn't a criticism of the idea. Claiming that the relativistic characterization of time is "linguistic garbage" despite it being mathematically simple and consistent isn't a criticism of the idea. From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1229" "Monday" "10" "April" "2000" "00:21:34" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "32" "starship-design: Formula page" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1229 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e3A9Sri18586 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 02:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp7.xs4all.nl (smtp7.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.50]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e3A9Spn18581 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 02:28:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from - (stol-104-128.uu.studentennet.nl [145.98.104.128]) by smtp7.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA20891 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 11:28:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000410002134.00690f64@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: 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: Formula page Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 00:21:34 +0100 Hi Tom, >>>> gamma = 1/Sqrt[1-v^2/c^2] >>> >>>I can probably show you six or seven gamma formulas from the >>>equation fields >> >>The one on your page does >>contain only v and c as well. (It misses the squareroot though.) > >I do not use the square root one as Einstein instructed it had problems of >returning imaginary solutions of real numbers and not just imaginary numbers. If you trow away the root, then why not throw away the division as well? That way you can also use v=c without getting a division error. Please quote me a accesible reference where Einstein suggests removing the square root in the way you do. >He fixed the problem with a different derivative I was taught in 1968 at the >FAA Academy. I don't consider imaginary numbers a problem. You can easily avoid getting them by taking the absolute of the term inside the squareroot (thus avoiding negative numbers). (You can also take the absolute afterwards in this case.) And I don't see where your reply has answered my remark about the formula on your page having only the variable c, while you write that "gamma is a complex variable with mass, velocity, time and spacial dimensions". Timothy From VM Mon Apr 10 10:02:54 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2032" "Monday" "10" "April" "2000" "16:08:40" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "39" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2032 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e3AEA8N11117 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 07:10:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e3AE9Gn10945 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 07:09:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA16823 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 16:08:40 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200004101408.QAA16823@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: Re: FTL travel Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 16:08:40 +0200 (MET DST) Sorry, but due to a severe lack of time recently, I am unable to take more active part in this discussion - I even have troubles with catching up with it (my "LIT-unread" archive contains still 270 posts...). One smal remark, though: > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Apr 10 02:13:34 2000 > From: Curtis Manges > > So you can see the problem I have with relativistic physics, > and the appeal that AD (or, better) Gaasenbeek's ideas have for me. > To me, they explain the universe more logically. Take two examples > I recall from Taylor & Wheeler: one states that a ship going > in a straight line will take longer, at the same velocity, than one > going zig-zag; another states that a ship doing a round trip at constant > velocity will take longer going out than it will coming back. > I'm sorry, folks, but this just seems schizophrenic to me. > Sorry, but this is no argument - our old & very natural Newtonian mechanics is also full of such "paradoxes", if only we step outside the circle of our familiar experiences - e.g., to space... For example, when you are on a circular orbit around, say, Earth, and want to transfer to a higher circular orbit, then despite the fact that the orbital velocity on that higher orbit is _smaller_ than on that you are using now, to reach the higher orbit you must actually _speed up_ twice (with the impulse propulsion mode). Isn't it shizophrenic? There are plenty of such paradoxes, also concerning rocket flight in the atmosphere (e.g., in some circumstances, with _the same amount of fuel_ you can reach higher altitute if you _increase the total weight_ of the rocket...). Fond of such paradoxes was one of the pioneers of astronautics - Ary Szternfeld (of Polish origin, BTW), what brought him a name of "Lord Paradox" in the astronautics community. He described many of them in his books and papers, starting from his fundamental book "Introduction to Cosmonautics" (first published in Moscow in 1937). -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Wed Apr 12 10:06:24 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2754" "Tuesday" "11" "April" "2000" "22:04:52" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "61" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2754 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3C27Il00228 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3C27G400223 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.99.186]) by mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000412020710.VQNH14374.mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 02:07:10 +0000 Message-ID: <38F3D9C4.F5E1F658@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <36.4407306.261ecfd2@aol.com> <14573.32157.596839.112799@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38EF5242.67AFD49@worldnet.att.net> <14575.46702.55819.527764@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38F11BC3.BB1D7EF3@worldnet.att.net> <14577.20490.501000.9062@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 , starship Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 22:04:52 -0400 Steve VanDevender wrote: > > > It's no more dogmatic than any other physics text I've read; > > > > that's scary . . . > > I suspect that if physics texts contained the amount of philosophical > hand-wringing needed to satisfy you, they'd be twice as big and even > harder to read. Pity's sake, Steve, I was trying to have some fun there. Excuse me for failing to append the ;-) to it. And, no, I don't want philosophical hand wringing (whatever that is) any more than I want dogma, I want _information_, I want _instruction_, and I want it clear, concise, and step by step, with each step explained fully, so that when I'm done working through it, I have understanding and confidence. > from what I can tell he [Gaasenbeek] > isn't even making substantially different predictions than conventional > theories, just trying to explain them in a different way. If he refuted time dilation, would that be different enough? Go back and read "Time Dilation: Fact or Fiction?" > You apparently don't understand the idea of spacetime interval well > enough to properly criticize it. Again, I do understand what Lorentz did: he took a right triangle, labeled "a" as space and "b" as time, or vise versa, applied Pythagorean theorem, and got space-time as the hypotenuse, "c". Very elegant, very simple. What I _don't_ understand is how he _got away_ with it. Here's how I see it: (1) time is not a property of space (otherwise you could answer the question, "How many seconds are in a cubic meter?", or, for that matter, even "How many seconds are in a meter?") (2) time and space are, therefor, unlike terms (3) the last I recall, it was illegal to combine unlike terms in an equation therefor, (4) the Lorentz space-time equation, and its resultant invariant interval, are illegal. I can't get any more concise than this in my presentation of my misunderstanding, and this should now allow you to precisely target my error and correct it. Whoever does so will get a gold star for the day, I will immediately buy the whole ball of wax, and we can all be happy together and go on to other things. Okay? Now, before I close for the day, I want to apologize to all of you, for what I'm sure has been one of the most exasperating series of exchanges in, oh, at least a couple of weeks. I know that you're all well intentioned, conscientious folks, just trying to accomplish some meaningful work in this life, same as me, and you're probably all pretty good at what you do. I have no ill will towards anyone, but sometimes I get a little abrasive, and I apologize. I'm working on that. Steve, I owe you a personal apology for my unjust harshness in my first post about the book. Please forgive me for that. Keep looking up, Curtis From VM Thu Apr 13 10:09:36 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5890" "Wednesday" "12" "April" "2000" "21:02:05" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "123" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5890 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3D42SP21011 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3D42Q421002 for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:02:26 -0700 (PDT) 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 e3D42LF11573; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3D42AG32737; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:02:10 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14581.18109.176512.503033@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <38F3D9C4.F5E1F658@worldnet.att.net> References: <36.4407306.261ecfd2@aol.com> <14573.32157.596839.112799@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38EF5242.67AFD49@worldnet.att.net> <14575.46702.55819.527764@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38F11BC3.BB1D7EF3@worldnet.att.net> <14577.20490.501000.9062@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38F3D9C4.F5E1F658@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: clmanges@worldnet.att.net Cc: starship Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:02:05 -0700 (PDT) Curtis Manges writes: > Steve VanDevender wrote: > > > > It's no more dogmatic than any other physics text I've read; > > > > > > that's scary . . . > > > > I suspect that if physics texts contained the amount of philosophical > > hand-wringing needed to satisfy you, they'd be twice as big and even > > harder to read. > > Pity's sake, Steve, I was trying to have some fun there. Excuse me > for failing to append the ;-) to it. And, no, I don't want > philosophical hand wringing (whatever that is) any more than I want > dogma, I want _information_, I want _instruction_, and I want it > clear, concise, and step by step, with each step explained fully, so > that when I'm done working through it, I have understanding and > confidence. Sorry, it just wasn't apparent to me that your comment was meant in fun. I have seen different people approach teaching counterintuitive subjects in different ways. Some like to start with the theoretical basis and work towards practical understanding only after the theory has been completely explained. Others may try to give at least some practical understanding without explaining all the theory behind it first, the idea being that intuitive understanding often comes from being able to play with a concept even if you don't fully understand it yet. Taylor and Wheeler seem to prefer the latter approach. If you read the whole book you will find that they don't just wave something in front of you never to explain it in full, but they do present some things as matters of fact so you can practice working with them, then explain why things happen that way later. It also occurs to me that there is another book on relativistic physics that I can recommend which you might like better: _Six Not-So-Easy Pieces_ derived from Richard P. Feynman's Caltech physics lectures. It also has an excellent discussion of mathematical symmetry in physics in the first couple of chapters. > > You apparently don't understand the idea of spacetime interval well > > enough to properly criticize it. > > Again, I do understand what Lorentz did: he took a right triangle, > labeled "a" as space and "b" as time, or vise versa, applied > Pythagorean theorem, and got space-time as the hypotenuse, "c". Very > elegant, very simple. Unfortunately I don't think you've fairly summarized what Lorentz did. Lorentz originally derived the Lorentz transform to obtain a formulation of Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism that would be invariant with respect to velocity. Only later did Einstein propose the (for the time) radical idea that the Lorentz transform could be used to transform space and time coordinates in general, producing predictions for high speeds that would be very different from the then-conventional Newtonian predictions. Also note that the spacetime interval is _not_ Pythagorean; for a vector (t, x, y, z) the interval is sqrt(t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2), not the hypotenuse sqrt(t^2 + x^2 + y^2 + z^2). The negative signs make all the difference; they are the underlying mathematical reason counterintutive things happen in relativity, such as curved paths through spacetime being shorter than straight ones. The geometry of spacetime, even in special relativity, is not Euclidean. > What I _don't_ understand is how he _got away_ with it. Here's how I > see it: > > (1) time is not a property of space (otherwise you could answer the > question, "How many seconds are in a cubic meter?", or, for that > matter, even "How many seconds are in a meter?") Even in unified units, "How many seconds are in a cubic meter?" is meaningless, because the left-hand side would have units of distance while the right-hand side has units of distance^3; you can't ask "how many meters in a cubic meter", either. However, there is an answer to "How many seconds are in a meter?" -- there are 299,792,458 meters in a second, so a meter is 1/299,792,458 seconds. > (2) time and space are, therefor, unlike terms This is really what the "parable of the surveyors" that opens _Spacetime Physics_ is about. Pre-relativistic physics considered time and space to be completely unlike and incomparable things, just as the daytimers measured north-south distances in one set of units and east-west distances in another. Post-relativistic physics says that there's a very nice way of expressing the relationships of relativity if you treat time as another kind of distance coordinate, with the speed of light (299,792,458 meters/second) as the conversion factor between units of time and distance. Then c is the unitless constant 1, velocities are also unitless, and many things get simpler to express while remaining mathematically equivalent. Some textbooks use c * t explicitly in their equations; Taylor and Wheeler happen to like a formulation where this is expressed implicitly. > (3) the last I recall, it was illegal to combine unlike terms in an > equation > > therefor, > > (4) the Lorentz space-time equation, and its resultant invariant > interval, are illegal. Well, if you use faulty assumptions, you reach faulty conclusions. Have you ever seen the Galilean transforms that are the Newtonian analogue to the Lorentz transforms? You might see that they also combine measurements of time and distance using velocity as a conversion factor: x' = x - v * t t' = t Is that supposed to be illegal too? If you read more carefully, you'll see that the unified-units presentation of relativity does not mix measurements of time in seconds and distance in meters -- units of time in seconds need to be multiplied by c to obtain units of time in meters; one must measure both time and distance in meters for things to come out right. One can even choose to measure both time and distance in seconds (by dividing distances in meters by c) which is occasionally convenient too. From VM Thu Apr 13 10:09:36 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["645" "Thursday" "13" "April" "2000" "07:18:17" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "24" "RE: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 645 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3DCJwb17527 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 05:19:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3DCJu417522 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 05:19:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p461.gnt.com [204.49.91.77]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA27762; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 07:19:45 -0500 Message-ID: <000901bfa542$75d4ad00$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: <14581.18109.176512.503033@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: "'starship'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 07:18:17 -0500 Curtis, > Steve VanDevender wrote: > > Curtis Manges writes: > > Steve VanDevender wrote: [clip] > It also occurs to me that there is another book on > relativistic physics > that I can recommend which you might like better: _Six Not-So-Easy > Pieces_ derived from Richard P. Feynman's Caltech physics > lectures. It > also has an excellent discussion of mathematical symmetry in > physics in > the first couple of chapters. I bought Taylor and Wheeler _because_ I was having a hard time with this one! It is a good text, don't get me wrong, but it is even more difficult in my opinion. But then I am relativistically challenged ;-) Lee From VM Thu Apr 13 10:09:36 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["961" "Thursday" "13" "April" "2000" "09:49:46" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "26" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 961 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3DFiWP06402 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:44:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3DFiU406366 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:44:30 -0700 (PDT) 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 JAA05963 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:44:26 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38F5EC9A.A2EDCD81@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: <000901bfa542$75d4ad00$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: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:49:46 -0600 "L. Parker" wrote: > It also occurs to me that there is another book o > I bought Taylor and Wheeler _because_ I was having a hard time with this > one! It is a good text, don't get me wrong, but it is even more difficult in > my opinion. But then I am relativistically challenged ;-) > I am challenged with higher math than grade 12,but I still can use equations to figure things out. Sure the fine details can be complex and approximations used, but difficulty is often the teacher not the student in higher learning. SR is based on two things: 1) The speed of light is constant for who ever measures it. 2) The right triangle formed by two people measuring the same light beam. Autodynamics (AD) Is just based on the speed of light is a constant. 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 Apr 13 11:22:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1332" "Thursday" "13" "April" "2000" "11:18:42" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "22" "RE: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1332 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3DIIfq25379 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:18:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clavin.efn.org (root@clavin.efn.org [206.163.176.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3DIIe425368 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:18:40 -0700 (PDT) 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 e3DIIcB03611 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:18:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3DIIhh02367; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:18:43 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14582.3970.467880.791645@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <000901bfa542$75d4ad00$0401a8c0@broadsword> References: <14581.18109.176512.503033@tzadkiel.efn.org> <000901bfa542$75d4ad00$0401a8c0@broadsword> 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: Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:18:42 -0700 (PDT) L. Parker writes: > > It also occurs to me that there is another book on relativistic > > physics that I can recommend which you might like better: _Six > > Not-So-Easy Pieces_ derived from Richard P. Feynman's Caltech > > physics lectures. It also has an excellent discussion of > > mathematical symmetry in physics in the first couple of chapters. > > I bought Taylor and Wheeler _because_ I was having a hard time with this > one! It is a good text, don't get me wrong, but it is even more difficult in > my opinion. But then I am relativistically challenged ;-) I can't say that I like _Six Not-So-Easy Pieces_ better than _Spacetime Physics_, but some of the explanations Feynman uses are quite clever. The lecture series Feynman gave was done in the early 1960s and the presentation of relativity was conventional for the time, meaning that it uses "relativistic mass" instead of invariant mass, and I think Feynman initially oversimplifies the presentation of relativity ("all you need is to replace 'mass' with 'relativistic mass'"). However, his explanation of the fundamental concepts of general relativity is really nifty, and he does provide some material that I think is a good transition between the old-style presentation of relativity and the newer, geometric interpretation used in Taylor and Wheeler. From VM Thu Apr 13 14:58:05 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1388" "Thursday" "13" "April" "2000" "16:20:50" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "34" "RE: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1388 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3DLNFU13492 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:23:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3DLND413451 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p450.gnt.com [204.49.91.66]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id QAA24504; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 16:23:09 -0500 Message-ID: <000a01bfa58e$5fd050d0$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: <14582.3970.467880.791645@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: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 16:20:50 -0500 > Steve VanDevender wrote: (and Ben) > L. Parker writes: [clip] > I can't say that I like _Six Not-So-Easy Pieces_ better than > _Spacetime > Physics_, but some of the explanations Feynman uses are quite clever. > The lecture series Feynman gave was done in the early 1960s and the > presentation of relativity was conventional for the time, meaning that > it uses "relativistic mass" instead of invariant mass, and I think > Feynman initially oversimplifies the presentation of relativity ("all > you need is to replace 'mass' with 'relativistic mass'"). > However, his > explanation of the fundamental concepts of general relativity > is really > nifty, and he does provide some material that I think is a good > transition between the old-style presentation of relativity and the > newer, geometric interpretation used in Taylor and Wheeler. My problem isn't mathematical or even philosophical as in Curtis' case. I can do differentials, and integrals with ease, matrix algebra and discrete logic don't bother me a bit. My problem is I simply don't "get" it. The intuitive leap that everyone keeps talking about, just doesn't happen. I can follow the math, I just don't _believe_ it. Actually the geometric interpretation was somewhat easier to understand. When I get a little more time on my hands (ha ha), I intend to get Steve, Timothy and Zenon to help me out here.... Lee From VM Thu Apr 13 17:11:21 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["10390" "Thursday" "13" "April" "2000" "20:06:25" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "312" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 10390 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3E06kB10719 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:06:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3E06j410711 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id c.62.26d2558 (3972); Thu, 13 Apr 2000 20:06:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <62.26d2558.2627bb01@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id e3E06k410714 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: Re: FTL travel Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 20:06:25 EDT In a message dated 4/11/00 7:08:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time, clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: > > Again, I do understand what Lorentz did: he took a right triangle, labeled " > a" as space > and "b" as time, or vise versa, applied Pythagorean theorem, and got space- > time as the > hypotenuse, "c". Very elegant, very simple. > > What I _don't_ understand is how he _got away_ with it. He did not get away with it. We caught him. > Here's how I see it: > > (1) time is not a property of space (otherwise you could answer the question, > "How many > seconds are in a cubic meter?", or, for that matter, even "How many seconds > are in a > meter?") True, Time=Mass/Distance defined from ancient times and expressed as the fourth dimension algebraicly by Einstein. Earth moving through earth orbit distance=one year. Earth moving through one rotation distance= day Moon moving through 1 earth orbit distance=month > > (2) time and space are, therefor, unlike terms Time is time and space is space space-time is a run together nonsense word > > (3) the last I recall, it was illegal to combine unlike terms in an equation > > therefor, It is. > > (4) the Lorentz space-time equation, and its resultant invariant interval, > are illegal. Equations contain only variables and constants. No equation contains invariants for it means non varying so is not a variable. It is not a constant like whole numbers 1,2,3 so used with interval perhaps it is the imaginary Quantum space in-between them. Most likely it is nonsense-mathamatical gobbledygook like Quantum physics. All real world physics is can be expressed completely in equations with variables of exponets 0,1,2,3 representing the 4 known dimensions. Originating from Lorenz the word is popularized by his followers also known as closet "etherists" who claims scientific thought is jumping to conclusions like "because sound needs air to travel through then light needs something to travel through." Such conjuring produces ether. Fantasy world physics of up to infinite dimensions is also produced by Quantum equations with exponents higher than 3. > > I can't get any more concise than this in my presentation of my > misunderstanding, and this > should now allow you to precisely target my error and correct it. Whoever > does so will get > a gold star for the day, I will immediately buy the whole ball of wax, and > we can all be > happy together and go on to other things. Okay? Stick to your guns you are without error in your thinking unless Einstein also was which is doubtfull. On to other things. I mentioned a juvenile book I read published in 1961 or 62 by Female author recording Einstein's death bed confession claiming invention of atomic bomb (impact not chain reaction nonsense) and other matters stating he never claimed that objects cannot exceed light speed because it was possible that a machine other than a particle accelerator could be found to exceed light speed and why and how. Besides female author the only thing I could recall was he chose her because she talked to children rather than down to them like Marie Hammontree did. She was selected over Marie for Marie's biography of him was childish gibberish. His last choice had published many science books for children with even advanced physics successfully taught. For those interested. My Library of congress search (Einstein 1961, or 1962 )results list members have requested for that book and the reader can come to his own conclusions and do any leg work to library as I memorized the best parts. Records 21 through 21 of 53 returned. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- [from old catalog] Title: ¯Aipart Ainstain. Published: [1962] Description: p. cm. LC Call No.: QC16.E5F7318 Notes: Romanized. Subjects: Einstein, Albert, 1879-1955. [from old catalog] Other authors: Mahadevan, R., [from old catalog] tr. Control No.: 6186360 Tagged display | Previous Record | Next Record | Brief Record Display | New Search ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- This Query Results Records 1 through 20 of 33 returned. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Uniform Title: Real magnet book Title: The book of magnets, by Mae Freeman. Pictures by Norman Bridwell. Published: New York, Four Winds Press [1968, c1967] LC Call No.: PZ10.F714Bm More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: A book of real science, by Mae Freeman. Pictures by John Moodie. Published: New York, Four Winds Press [1966] LC Call No.: PZ10.F714Bo More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Do you know about stars? Illustrated by George Solonovich. Published: New York, Random House [1970] LC Call No.: PZ10.F714Dl More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Do you know about water? Illustrated by Ernest Kurt Barth. Published: New York, Random House [1970] LC Call No.: PZ10.F714Do More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Finding out about shapes [by] Mae Freeman. Illustrated by Bill Morrison. Published: New York, McGraw-Hill [1969] LC Call No.: PZ10.F714Fi More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Finding out about the past. Published: New York, Random House [1967] LC Call No.: GN743.F7 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Fun and experiments with light, by Mae and Ira Freeman. Published: New York, Random House [1963] LC Call No.: QC357.F7 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Fun with astronomy, by Mae and Ira Freeman. Published: New York, Random House [1953] LC Call No.: QB46.F77 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Fun with ballet. Published: New York, Random House [1952] LC Call No.: GV1781.F66 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Fun with chemistry, by Mae and Ira Freeman. Published: New York, Random House [1944] LC Call No.: QD38.F68 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Fun with cooking, by Mae Blacker Freeman. Published: New York, Random House [1947] LC Call No.: TX652.5.F7 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Fun with figures, by Mae and Ira Freeman. Published: New York, Random House [1946] LC Call No.: QA95.F7 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Fun with science, by Mae and Ira Freeman. Published: New York, Random House [1943] LC Call No.: QC25.F7 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Fun with science; [easy experiments for young people] by Mae and Ira Freeman. Published: New York, Random House, 1956. LC Call No.: QC25.F7 1956 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Fun with scientific experiments, by Mae and Ira Freeman. Published: New York, Random House [1960] LC Call No.: Q163.F76 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Fun with your camera, by Mae and Ira Freeman. Published: New York, Random House [1955] LC Call No.: TR149.F85 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Gravity and the astronauts, by Mae Freeman. Illustrated by Beatrice Darwin. Published: New York, Crown [1971, c1970] LC Call No.: PZ10.F714Gr3 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Space base, by Mae Freeman. Illustrated by Raul Mina Mora. Published: New York, Watts, 1972. LC Call No.: PZ10.F714Sp More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: Stars and stripes. Published: New York, Random House [1964] LC Call No.: CR113.F85 More on this record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Author: Freeman, Mae Blacker, 1907- Title: The story of Albert Einstein; the scientist who searched out the secrets of the universe. Published: New York, Random House [1958] LC Call No.: QC16.E5F73 1958 For more LIbrary of Congress searches. See link http://lcweb.loc.gov/cgi-bin/zgate?srchagain+191628+/prod/www/data/z3950/locil s.html Tom From VM Fri Apr 14 10:12:13 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4095" "Thursday" "13" "April" "2000" "21:24:50" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "73" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4095 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3E1RA711430 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 18:27:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3E1R9411420 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 18:27:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.96.130]) by mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000414012701.SZBU6491.mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 01:27:01 +0000 Message-ID: <38F67361.5E182423@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <36.4407306.261ecfd2@aol.com> <14573.32157.596839.112799@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38EF5242.67AFD49@worldnet.att.net> <14575.46702.55819.527764@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38F11BC3.BB1D7EF3@worldnet.att.net> <14577.20490.501000.9062@tzadkiel.efn.org> <38F3D9C4.F5E1F658@worldnet.att.net> <14581.18109.176512.503033@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 , starship Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 21:24:50 -0400 Well. Steve, the gold star is yours, and thanks for your help and indulgence. Now I get to start over, I guess. I figured out why it's been such a hassle for me to even get my objections into a clear statement; I think I'm at the steepest part of the learning curve with this, the place where you don't yet know enough to ask intelligent questions. The secret source of life's most embarrassing moments. I was a little nervous waiting for a reply to my statement. I didn't see how I could possibly be altogether correct, given that this stuff has been worked over by the greatest minds of the twentieth century, and my own not being one of them, for sure! > I have seen different people approach teaching counterintuitive subjects > in different ways. Some like to start with the theoretical basis and > work towards practical understanding only after the theory has been > completely explained. Others may try to give at least some practical > understanding without explaining all the theory behind it first, the > idea being that intuitive understanding often comes from being able to > play with a concept even if you don't fully understand it yet. And now I'm not sure _which_ kind of book would work best for me, as my preference in texts came out of my experience with more intuitive subject matter. > It also occurs to me that there is another book on relativistic physics > that I can recommend which you might like better: _Six Not-So-Easy > Pieces_ derived from Richard P. Feynman's Caltech physics lectures. It > also has an excellent discussion of mathematical symmetry in physics in > the first couple of chapters. Maybe I need a "Spacetime Physics for Dummies" . . . (I'd better watch myself, it's probably in print!) > Also note that the spacetime interval is _not_ Pythagorean; this made the most difference for me, immediately, at least. I said, "Ah, _that's_ where I screwed up." As you said, if you use faulty assumptions, you reach faulty conclusions. I just needed to know where my assumptions were at fault. As for the rest, it's going to take me a while to absorb. Part of my problem is that it's been about twenty years since my mostly unused formal education; my math skills are gone to rust and I've forgotten too much of the other basic stuff that would make this easier for me. Another part of my problem is in getting used to thinking this way; I've always been uncomfortable with abstractions. This brings me to the topic of counterintuitive thinking. Now, I'm a real fan of intuition and instinct, these are great things, parts of a marvelous package of powerful tools (including intellect, of course) which have made it possible for our species to evolve to where we are today. I've had to admit, though, that you don't even need to get sub-orbital, as in Zenon Kulpa's examples, before intuition fails; it begins to break down the minute you do something as simple as putting a couple of wheels under you. I recently bought a motor scooter, and I love to ride, but learning how to steer one is the most counterintuitive thing I've ever done: to make it go _right_, you push the wheel to the _left_. I tried to figure that out, and my poor brain just fizzled. The best I've been able to do is to state the conditions, thus: at any speed above that of a walk, the steering characteristic can reverse dramatically, and it has nothing to do with your speed or the sharpness of the curve, and everything to do with the amount of acceleration you apply. If the front wheel feels acceleration, the bike will tend to go left when steered right; during deceleration, it will go right when steered right. This is why they tell you not to brake when you're in a turn; I did one day and almost got a flying lesson out of it. This is schizophrenic. And bikers wonder why people think they're crazy? It's an intuitive judgment, of course! My conclusion is that intuition fails for _any_ kind of mechanized travel, so I suppose that the sooner we get used to the idea, the better, _especially_ for space travel. Anyway, thanks again, and keep looking up Curtis From VM Fri Apr 14 10:12:13 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2400" "Friday" "14" "April" "2000" "16:59:56" "+0100" "Walker, Chris" "Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM" nil "46" "RE: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2400 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3EGCc324115 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 09:12:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns1.sky.co.uk (ns1.sky.co.uk [193.117.250.171]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3EGCa424101 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 09:12:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ost_exch_bhs01.bskyb.com (ost_exch_ldbal.sky.co.uk [195.153.219.190]) by ns1.sky.co.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA28042 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:29:13 +0100 (BST) Received: from ost_exch_bhs01.bskyb.com (unverified) by ost_exch_bhs01.bskyb.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.1.5) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:59:57 +0100 Received: by OST_EXCH_BHS01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <28TSD98A>; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:59:57 +0100 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: FTL travel Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:59:56 +0100 Hi all, I've finally gotten around to posting a contribution to the recent discussions. As I understand it, when we talk about 'faster-than-light' travel to the stars, we are doing so from our reference point here on Earth. To summarise the previous discussions briefly: if a spacecraft was launched towards the nearest star (call it 4 light years away), and travelled there and back (assume instant turn-around time!) in less than 8 years, we would say that it has travelled faster than light. I'm assuming it hasn't used a wormhole or other such shortcut. However, say the spacecraft travels at the 0.894c mentioned in previous posts. Then to us observers here on Earth, it would return after about 8.944 years. To the crew on-board, the journey would only last about 4 years. So, as far as the crew are concerned, they have effectively (but not actually, to us) travelled faster than light - because of time-dilation. The point I'm thinking about is that if you're purely an explorer, and don't care about being able to sensibly communicate with people back on Earth, then it doesn't matter if you can't employ FTL travel as long as you can travel very close to 'c'. For, due to time dilation, you can comfortably cover vast distances in what seems like a reasonable amount of time to you (as the crew in Poul Anderson's "Tau Ceti" did). You have, in a sense, your FTL ship. You get to travel round the universe and see a lot of sights in your lifetime :) Thinking along more practical lines though, such interstellar travel is more likely to be funded by a corporation of some kind rather than a very wealthy (and lucky) individual who gets the chance to do the aforementioned jaunt. The point being that the corporation is going to want some kind of financial return in the foreseeable future for stumping up the cash to begin with. They're going to want a *true* FTL ship - something that can travel from Earth to a destination hundreds of light-years away and back within a decade (say). They don't care that travelling at a mere 0.9999c will make the trip seem considerably shorter for the crew if they don't get their investment back for a several centuries. To sum up: we're discussing FTL travel from the point of view of being on Earth. Travelling four light years at 0.89c and having the *crew* think they're burning along at 2c (due to time dilation) isn't FTL. Regards, Chris From VM Fri Apr 14 15:06:19 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4499" "Friday" "14" "April" "2000" "17:00:55" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "83" "RE: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4499 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3EM3NK27858 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 15:03:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3EM3M427849 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 15:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p468.gnt.com [204.49.91.84]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA05405; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:03:16 -0500 Message-ID: <000d01bfa65d$2735f480$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: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Walker, Chris'" , Subject: RE: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:00:55 -0500 Chris, Well you just summed up the difficulty with slowboat travel. (That is what the SF writers call travel at less than c.) We have had many discussions about the philosophical and economical ramifications of the light speed limit. But there is more to it than that, which I will get around to in a minute. To recap previous arguments: 1) Travel to the stars at less than c is SLOW. 2) Travel to the stars in a ship designed to take decades or centuries to reach its destination is EXPENSIVE. 3) Other than the quest for knowledge (something of dubious value in hard currency) there is NO reason to go to another star. 4) Ergo, only government funded exploration missions are likely in the next few hundred years. 5) It is possible that as our space borne presence increases there will be a sufficient drop in the cost of said missions that SOME private or commercially funded expeditions may become feasible. Feasible does not mean the same thing as likely! 6) If there is an incentive to encourage such a venture, such as stipulated ownership of the system by its colonizing agent, then it might become LIKELY. Even then, there would be some doubt. 7) The cost in time to ROI (Return On Investment) is one of the key driving factors in business development decisions, that WILL NOT change. Only a very few multinational companies currently even attempt to plan beyond ten years, I know of none that plan for a hundred or more... This all sounds familiar so far, but now let us look at a few ECONOMIC points in detail. Let us assume that we DO have FTL transportation. Great, now we can get there and back in let us say one month per light year of distance (pick a velocity, it really doesn't matter much). So Alpha Centauri is now only 4 months away. Let us speculate further that there is a habitable planet circling Alpha Centauri. The only cost we have removed from the equation is time. The corporations are still looking for their ROI. It will cost say (for example) 100 billion dollars to establish a well-equipped colony capable of sustaining itself, not including the cost of the ship which we will assume for the moment is irrelevant. Now, what is this colony going to provide to the company that established it that will allow it to recoup it investment of 100 billion dollars AND show a profit of AT LEAST 25 billion dollars? Certainly not exported materials, the cost of transport would have to be cheaper than intrasystem transport within Sol space ( 4 minutes, or 4 hours away) which isn't very likely. Food? They will be lucky to feed themselves, and the same argument about transportation cost still applies. Luxury goods? Hmm, strange thing for a new colony to be making, but even so, 125 billion dollars worth? Maybe this isn't very economical after all. Now let us look at the ship. It cost how much to build? It is the size (at least) of an aircraft carrier and probably costs at least as much, probably considerably more, but lit us just say it was 100 billion dollars (nice number). Now they owners of the ship have to amortize the cost of the ship across its lifespan and realize a profit also. Seagoing vessels average about 30 year lifespans, some as high as fifty or sixty after major refits. At an operating margin of fifteen percent (typical) it will take from twelve to twenty years to repay the cost of the ship. At twenty years it will require major refitting to bring it current with other newer ships so that it can stay competitive which will extend the financing cost an additional six year or so. During the same interval, that ship could carry 800 times as much cargo on a local route (such as the Oort Cloud) within the solar system and make 800 times as much profit. I submit that until we either run out of resources within nearby Sol space or find something of dramatic value elsewhere, this is NOT a good investment decision. We aren't likely to exhaust local resources anytime soon.... Before someone goes and tries to pick me to death, all of the above figures are GUESSES, yours are as good as mine, neither is provable. I tried to err in the FAVOR of star travel if I could, the actuality is probably MUCH worse. The costs are probably in the trillions, not billions, and initial profit margins are likely to be much lower due to unexpectedly high operating costs. To make this feasible, it must cost EXACTLY as much for delivery to/from solar orbit as it does to/from any star's orbit in terms of money AND time. Or it won't work. Lee From VM Fri Apr 14 15:59:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["19529" "Friday" "14" "April" "2000" "17:51:10" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "415" "starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 93 (fwd)" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 19529 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3EMtJV22184 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 15:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3EMtH422167 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 15:55:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p435.gnt.com [204.49.91.51]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA13784 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:55:09 -0500 Message-ID: <001001bfa664$5ce0ccc0$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 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: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 93 (fwd) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:51:10 -0500 Space Access Update #93 4/13/00 Copyright 2000 by Space Access Society ________________________________________________________________________ (SAS's eighth annual conference, "Space Access 2000", will be at the Holiday Inn Old Town in Scottsdale Arizona April 27-29 - see http://www.space-access.org for details. Call 800 695-6995 for a room at our $69 "space access" rate - the hotel is over 90% full for our dates and rooms are going fast - reserve now!) ________________________________________________________________________ Contents: - SAU #92 Space Launch Initiative Policy Clarification - Space Access 2000 Conference Preview ________________________________________________________________________ SAS's Space Launch Initiative Policy Clarification We got a fair amount of response to our last Update, #92, (available at http://www.space-access.org/updates/sau92.html) outlining our initial response to NASA's proposed new five-year plan for advanced launch development, their Space Launch Initiative (SLI). We made one outright error, calling NASA's SLI-precursor Integrated Space Transportation Plan "Advanced" rather than "Integrated" - it's ISTP, not ASTP. Oops. And some of our readers were good enough to point out places where we'd been unclear; one of these in particular is critical, and a clarification follows. The core of our argument is that NASA SLI is based on two incorrect assumptions: 1), that NASA and US commercial launch technology requirements can be successfully shotgun-wedding "converged" by NASA, and following from this that 2), a single program centered around forcing US commercial requirements to fit NASA's internal requirements won't be another predictable waste of taxpayer dollars. We pointed to history to make our case; both the disastrous pre-1986 shutdown of the US ELV industry in favor of forcing all commercial launches onto Shuttle, and the increasingly obvious failure of the current X-33/Venturestar NASA/commercial program, indicate major problems with forced NASA-commercial covergence. We did not, however, go into detail about the requirements incompatibilities. In brief, we see them as being: - In terms of system performance, NASA tends to require large payloads both up to and down from the relatively difficult-to-reach Station orbit. This biases SLI towards large, high-performance, high- investment (multiple billions) systems and prejudices it against smaller, relaxed-performance, lower-investment (hundreds of millions) systems that might nevertheless find profitable commercial market niches and serve important national low-cost launch needs. - In terms of political control, the problem is obvious: No sensible commercial operator wants to share a launch system with NASA when the agency could disrupt commercial schedules for agency needs at any time. The mass exodus by the airlines from the CRAF military-callup program after CRAF was activated for the Gulf War is a case in point. - In terms of staffing and costs, NASA Shuttle/Station's launch requirements include the unspoken but very real need to maintain something like current staff levels at the various NASA centers involved, for bureaucratic continuity and political patronage reasons. These staff levels, while low by historic NASA standards, are far too high for practical commercial efforts. Put another way, NASA is more cost-sensitive than it used to be, but is still far less so than a profitable commercial enterprise would have to be. We think that, in view of the preceding, the solution we offer makes eminent good sense: Split off support for NASA launch technology needs from support for US commercial launch technology needs - form two distinct programs with two very different approaches - and divide the available funding appropriately. ________________________________________________________________________ Space Access 2000 Conference Preview Our eighth annual conference on radically cheaper space access is just two weeks away, and it's about time we told you a bit more about the presentations we've lined up. First, though, a quick note - if what you see here sounds worthwhile, there's still time to get that Friday off, book an affordable airfare to Phoenix, and reserve yourself a room at our fine conference hotel. Registration and hospitality open Thursday evening April 27th at six, Thursday intro sessions commence at eight pm, and main sessions run all day and evening Friday the 28th and Saturday the 29th. If you're worried about finding a room if our hotel fills up too soon, a quick web search reveals there are nine other hotels within a half- mile. Mind, if you do have to book a room elsewhere, we do advise you to check again the day you arrive; often tourist no-shows will open rooms at the last second. And if you're worried about spending a few days of our warm dry Arizona spring stuck in the middle of nowhere, that quick web search also reveals that there are 84 (no typo, that's eighty-four) restaurants and a stunning variety of shopping within a half mile of our conference hotel. Did we mention that our $69 hotel rate is good three days before and after the conference? You don't really need a rental car here; you can get in from the Phoenix aiport via cab or "Super Shuttle" van, unless of course you want to go further afield while you're here and explore the variety of Arizona golf courses, horseback riding, historical sites, and scenic wonders nearby. Check out http://www.space-access.org/updates/sa2000.html for details and for any last-second additions or changes. See you there! In alphabetical order, here's our list of confirmed presentations as of April 12th: - Dana Andrews - Andrews Space & Technology Dana Andrews was Boeing's longtime chief engineer for Reusable Launch until he retired this winter and joined his son's consulting firm, Andrews Space & Technology. (Tom Healy, formerly of Rockwell, took over his post at Boeing. Both Dana and Tom have spoken at previous Space Access conferences.) Dana tells us AS&T has an RLV concept that meets current noise regs doing runway takeoff, and at 650,000 lbs gross liftoff weight can do NASA baseline Station missions. He says, if you want to find out how AS&T proposes to do this, catch his talk. - Mitchell Burnside Clapp - Pioneer Rocket Plane Mitchell Burnside Clapp is an ex-USAF flight test engineer, an incorrigible proponent of innovative approaches to reusable space launch, and the founder and President of Pioneer Rocket Plane, a company pursuing an aerial propellant-transfer commercial reusable spaceplane. Mitch will be giving two talks, one on Pioneer's status and plans, one on "Optimizing Trajectories For Low Isp Launch Vehicles", (or, Where Does That 1000 FPS Savings Come From Anyway?) - Len Cormier, MMI Mr. Cormier has dedicated much of the past 40 years to the pursuit of lower cost access to space. He began in the space business at the National Academy of Sciences in 1956 and at NASA headquarters in 1959. In the early-mid 1960s he was project engineer for space transport systems at the LA Division of North American Aviation. After that he worked as a project engineer and program manager for Fighter Systems at North American-Rockwell. Mr. Cormier formed his own company in 1967 to pursue commercial space launch consulting, which he has continued ever since with a variety of projects. Len was a charter member and a re-appointed member of the Dept. of Transportation's Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee, COMSTAC. Mr. Cormier will present on the Millennium Express TSTO and the XVan2001 entry to the X PRIZE contest, and will take part in our panel on what the government might do to help the low-cost launch industry. - Experimental Rocket Propulsion Society ERPS is an amateur non-profit (for the moment) rocket company run out of the San Francisco Bay Area; they're working on small peroxide engines and catalysts, as well as controls, guidance, tankage, airframes, and flight-test/regulatory issues for small reusable-rocket flight demonstrators. They'll be presenting data on a new catalyst that works with 90% and 98% peroxide, and presenting data and showing video from recent engine tests. - Bill Gaubatz - Universal Space Lines Bill Gaubatz is perhaps best known as McDonnell-Douglas's program manager for the DC-X reusable rocket flight demonstration project. He currently works reusable launch for USL, founded by another member of the DC-X team, the late (and much missed) Pete Conrad. Bill will be talking about USL's plans, including their MSX ultra-low-cost reusable rocket operations demonstrator, a vehicle transportable in the back of a pickup truck, intended to explore high flight-rate vertical- takeoff/vertical-landing operations up through supersonic speeds. - Jeff Greason - XCOR Aerospace Jeff Greason is boss of XCOR Aerospace, founded by ex-Rotary Rocket engineers in Mojave California - Jeff managed Rotary's rotary engine development project - with the goal of working up to low-cost reusable space launch incrementally. They're currently working on a project to build a runway-capable replica of the Bell X-1 rocketplane, as a way of both making money and demonstrating their capabilities. The Scottsdale fire marshal willing, they should have an interesting hardware demo for us. - Gary Hudson - Rotary Rocket Company Gary needs little introduction; he's the founder and CEO of Rotary Rocket Company, which last year brought the Roton ATV landing- mode/structures/systems testbed (for Rotary's planned Roton rocket SSTO space transport) to successful initial flight test. Gary is a longtime advocate of single-stage-to-orbit reusable rockets, has founded several commercial rocket companies, and if the current parched funding climate ever breaks, is still a good bet to be among the first making money flying reusable rockets to orbit. - Jordin Kare - Laser Launch: A Near-Term Approach Jordin Kare has degrees in physics and electrical engineering from MIT, and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics from UC Berkeley. He became a designer of advanced space systems during 11 years at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which included 5 years as the head of the SDIO Laser Propulsion Program. He left LLNL in 1996 to become chief scientist for RDL Space, a startup attempting to build a commercial synthetic aperture radar satellite system. Since 1997 he has been a freelance consultant to the aerospace industry and government - contact jtkare@ibm.net. His talk will describe an approach to laser-powered ground-to-orbit launch that parallels other CATS concepts -- not necessarily the most elegant approach, but cheap and doable now. - Kelly Space & Technology Founded by Michael Kelly, an ex-TRW space systems engineer, KS&T is best known for pursuing the "Eclipse" towed air-start reusable winged rocket approach to low-cost space launch. While this project is moving forward about as fast - not very - as the various other entrepreneurial RLV projects in the current dry funding climate, KS&T has also pursued various consulting projects, including NASA's ongoing Space Transportation Architecture Studies (STAS), and Mike tells us that KS&T expects to be in the black this year. - Tim Kyger - Universal Space Network Universal Space Network, a sister company to USL, is proving that the best space business to be in at current launch costs is still the one that involves a massless product, space communications. USN has contracts in hand plus a recent infusion of $15 million in venture capital, and is rapidly expanding its capabilities for low-cost flexible spacecraft communications. Tim Kyger is the Washington political liaison for the USL group of companies and does marketing for USN. In previous lives he's been a space political activist and a Congressional space staffer. He'll be presenting on USN, and taking part in panel discussions. - Dr. John S. Lewis, University of Arizona John Lewis is a noted planetary scientist and author (Mining The Sky, Rain Of Iron And Ice, Resources Of Near Earth Space, others) who will be talking to us on the subject of What Can Be Done With Cosmic Rocks?: Recent Advances, so if we do manage to get off this particular rock anytime soon, we might have some idea what to do next. - Charles Miller, CSI Chaz Miller is a longtime space activist, founder and former head of the ProSpace lobbying organization, and current entrepreneur and CEO of CSI, a company working on getting into the on-orbit operations business. Chaz will be presenting on The Market Economics Of On-Orbit Satellite Servicing. - Elaine Walker-Mullen, Zia Elaine Walker-Mullen is founding member of the pro-space-electronic- pop band, ZIA, and president of the New York City Chapter of the National Space Society. Elaine will be taking us to the stars (or at least Low Earth Orbit) as she sings, evenings in our hospitality suite. http://www.ziaspace.com - Leik Myrabo, RPI We aren't even going to try to spell what RPI stands for, but it's upstate New York's answer to MIT, and Leik Myrabo is a professor there who specializes in very, very advanced propulsion methods. If you ever wondered where SF/technothriller author Dean Ing gets those wild ideas, Myrabo and Ing coauthored a classic book called "The Future Of Flight" back around 1980 or so, a book that described a number of very advanced ways of getting there from here *fast* that physics said were possible but that engineering state-of-the-art said "not yet". Engineering has been catching up - Leik Myrabo has recently had access to a 10 kilowatt laser at White Sands Missile Range to work on laser thermal propulsion, and a 100 kilowatt laser at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base to do the first-ever demo of direct light-pressure "light sail" propulsion, displacing a JPL-developed carbon-fiber mesh suspended in a vacuum with no measurable mass-loss to the mesh. Myrabo is also doing "MHD Slipstream Accelerator" work at RPI, which as we understand it involves electrically directing and accelerating plasma flows around hypersonic vehicles. He'll be talking about what he's up to in all of these areas. - NASA Future-X The NASA MSFC "Future-X" X-37 project will be sending someone out to talk to us about goals and progress. X-37 is an autonomous reusable upper stage testbed, derived from the USAF AFRL Phillips X-40a, designed to have considerable ability to reach orbit (given a boost a good part of the way), conduct maneuvers there, then reenter and land. - Orbital Sciences Corp OSC will be sending someone out to talk about their "Future-X" X-34 project to build an autonomous, air-launched mach 8 winged reusable rocket testbed, and about their NASA "Space Transportation Architecture Studies" (STAS) results so far - Orbital is advocating a flexibly-launched general-purpose "Space Taxi" Crew and Cargo Transfer Vehicle as the next step in increasing manned-space flexibility and assuring NASA Human Spaceflight's continued ability to do its job. - Jim Ransom, Ransom Systems Engineering Jim Ransom is a consultant who has worked for the Air Force Space and Missiles Center and for various RLV startups; his presentation, Lean Development: Doing Better Faster Cheaper Right, is a how-to applicable to lean fast-paced technology developments in general. - Bob Ray, TGV Rockets TGV Rockets was founded to pursue cheap space access in an incremental, bottom-up manner. They've chosen a reusable medium- payload transportable sounding rocket as their initial commercial venture. - Dave Salt Dave has been at various times associated with British Aerospace and with the European Space Agency; he comes over to talk to us about The Year In European Space, how things are going over there, just so we don't feel so bad about how hard RLV funding is to come by over here. - Space Access LLC No relation, honest! SA LLC is a Palmdale California based reusable launch company that is pursuing an airbreathing runway-takeoff hypersonic aircraft approach to low-cost space launch. - Henry Spencer Henry Spencer is a systems programmer, long-time space enthusiast, and amateur space historian of note ("I corrected Henry" t-shirts take considerable earning). He was head of mission planning for the late lamented Canadian Solar Sail Project, and software architect for the MOST astronomy satellite ("Canada's first space telescope"). He'll be giving his by-now traditional Thursday evening talk, Introduction To Space & Continuing Controversies. - Henry Vanderbilt, SAS Henry Vanderbilt is founder and Executive Director of Space Access Society. He used to be involved in electronics hardware and software engineering, but he made the mistake of taking up writing about space for a new on-line network in 1985, then took a job at L-5 Society HQ and then at National Space Society, then went back to software for a few years while he worked with the CACNSP, studied, and thought things over. In 1992 he made the additional mistake of being underemployed and having the right experience mix when it became far too obvious that full-time focussed advocacy was essential on the vital central question of affordable space access. Thus SAS was born on the Fourth of July, 1992. Vanderbilt looks forward to the day when he'll have old friends he can bum a ride to orbit from - at that point, his job will be done and he can go back to making money, having health insurance, and not living like a starving student anymore. He will at some point talk about SAS's perspective on The Current Scene, conduct an Ask The Executive Director session for SAS members, and take part in a panel or two. - Panel: What Can (Or Should) the Government Do To Help? Government played a large role in the advancement of aeronautics in the US. Are they currently doing anything analogous for space transportation? If not, could they? Would doing nothing at all be better that their current efforts? Our panel (TBA) deliberates. - Panel: The Current RLV Investment Climate: What Now? Thus far, most money available for cheap launch ventures has been of the individual-investor "angel" sort, and it hasn't been enough yet to get any reusable rockets to orbit. What will it take to turn average investors aside from the dot-com lemming rush and lure them into a cheap-launch lemming rush? Our panel of entrepreneurs, tech investors, and political mavens ponder this question. - Mitchell Burnside Clapp, Low-Cost Launch Entrepreneur - Stephen Fleming, Alliance Technology Ventures - Gary Hudson, Low-Cost Launch Entrepreneur - Tim Kyger, Beltway Space Politics Wonk - Joe Pistritto, Technology Investor - Henry Vanderbilt, Space Technology & Policy Wonk ________________________________________________________________________ Space Access Society's sole purpose is to promote radical reductions in the cost of reaching space. You may redistribute this Update in any medium you choose, as long as you do it unedited in its entirety. ________________________________________________________________________ Space Access Society http://www.space-access.org space.access@space-access.org "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the Solar System" - Robert A. Heinlein From VM Fri Apr 14 16:22:42 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5885" "Friday" "14" "April" "2000" "19:16:26" "EDT" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" "STAR1SHIP@aol.com" nil "115" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5885 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3ENGlT03696 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3ENGk403681 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from STAR1SHIP@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.66.2b50e9c (3975); Fri, 14 Apr 2000 19:16:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <66.2b50e9c.262900ca@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 100 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 travel Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 19:16:26 EDT In a message dated 4/14/00 9:14:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Chris.Walker@BSKYB.COM writes: > > The point I'm thinking about is that if you're purely an explorer, and don't > care about being able to sensibly communicate with people back on Earth, > then it doesn't matter if you can't employ FTL travel as long as you can > travel very close to 'c'. For, due to time dilation, you can comfortably > cover vast distances in what seems like a reasonable amount of time to you > (as the crew in Poul Anderson's "Tau Ceti" did). You have, in a sense, your > FTL ship. You get to travel round the universe and see a lot of sights in > your lifetime :) > > Thinking along more practical lines though, such interstellar travel is more > likely to be funded by a corporation of some kind rather than a very wealthy > (and lucky) individual who gets the chance to do the aforementioned jaunt. Hi Cris. All is needed is a practical engine. Patent rights to an individual on a starship class engine drives the cost of solar system exploration, mining, and colonization to fractions of pennies per pound (yea you heard that about nuclear power). Anyway on to business-funding for a star mission can be taken from license profits alone. I do not believe that ground bounders can prevent that from happening. Mankind has dipped their toes in the ocean of space and ran back to mother earth like children on the seashore afraid to swim. Some dream of traveling to the stars. I just hope I am in the correct mailing list for believers. I was beginning to doubt from all the negativity about the possibility of star travel. What a demoralized group. How Come? > The point being that the corporation is going to want some kind of financial > return in the foreseeable future for stumping up the cash to begin with. > They're going to want a *true* FTL ship - something that can travel from > Earth to a destination hundreds of light-years away and back within a decade > (say). They don't care that travelling at a mere 0.9999c will make the trip > seem considerably shorter for the crew if they don't get their investment > back for a several centuries. > > To sum up: we're discussing FTL travel from the point of view of being on > Earth. Travelling four light years at 0.89c and having the *crew* think > they're burning along at 2c (due to time dilation) isn't FTL. True but it is the first step to realizing that FTL is possible for velocity aboard the ship can be correctly measured at 1c, 2c, 3c, .....n defined as warp speed 1,2,3 ..n. Steve's distance calculation of seen 1 point some odd light years for a true 4 light years distance does not hold to examination. Length is contracted by velocity on the ship only not the distance between the travel points. The rocket man measured the distance before and after stopping to determine the distance. measurement for him to measure the 4 light years with foreshortened rulers on board the distance would be greater than 4 light years not less as Steve has mixed frames of reference (like I just did with foreshortened rulers) to find a value supporting his theory of a c limit for rockets. His imagination (useful) is not trained and disciplined to a point where he can separate imaginary rockets from Einstein's thought experiments and focus on real rockets. I use the "Tau Ceti" example to get students used to the idea of and calculating measuring velocities greater than C. I then introduce them to negative velocities and prove by analytic geometry that when an object exceeds light speed wrt earth it cannot be observed. As there is not a velocity limit for rockets known then nothing is to prevent a rocket traveling greater than c wrt earth. I do not plan to shut my engine of while accelerating to beyond light just because Steve is having a hysterical fit aboard ship thinking it will not make it. (Star travel is no place for girlie boys) I may just do what Columbus did on way to America and feed the crew false distance and velocity measurements to prevent mutiny. Steve can then discover returning to earth from the stars that his earth bound relatives are much younger than he calculated possible. As Star ship commander my authority is absolute and is under Maritime Law extended into space beyond any national boarder jurisdiction. Punishment can range from me giving a shame finger (right index finger stroking top of left index finger) to instruction that you are endangering my ship, crew and mission so may be trapped in the fantasy world of my holodeck so turn in space suit and exit holodeck now and report to me. Exit by clicking Exit sign on holodeck at below link. http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/index.htm#7 A rocket traveling at accelerating at 1 g wrt earth for one year exceeds light speed (approx 1.2 C). shining a light for an earth observer towards earth the light travels at c toward earth but does not ever reach earth for the velocity of light wrt earth is neg point 2 c. This means that the light is indeed traveling toward the earth wrt the ship but because of its negative velocity is actually travelling away from the earth as velocity is scalar vector with both magnitude and direction. Freshman grasp the idea of negative velocities quicker than seniors for some reason in a basic physical science using cars and train examples. Were I to believe the cosmologists the stars at the edge of the universe from Doppler shift appear to be accelerating at near light speed. Objects beyond edge objects are concluded to exceed light speed though not visible for the above reasons. Siting in my chair my velocity wrt beyond visible universe edge objects is greater than light speed. Wrt a valid viewpoint (reference frame) I am exceeding light speed at this very moment. Tom > > Regards, > > Chris From VM Mon Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["277" "Saturday" "15" "April" "2000" "13:46:09" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "6" "Re: RE: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 277 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3FHkn726733 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:46:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3FHkm426727 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 10:46:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 4.a9.44563fc (4311); Sat, 15 Apr 2000 13:46:10 -0400 (EDT) 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: FTL travel Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 13:46:09 EDT Good 7 point list Lee. Yeah unless we learn some great new physics or manufacturing trick. Interstellar travel will be extreamly expensive and limited. Commercial options are nil, and even self supporting colonies would be impossible. Explorers only for a while. Kelly From VM Mon Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["736" "Saturday" "15" "April" "2000" "12:14:50" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 736 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3FI9UE01663 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 11:09:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3FI9S401658 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 11:09:28 -0700 (PDT) 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 MAA01475 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 12:09:22 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38F8B19A.FAF611B5@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: FTL travel Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 12:14:50 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > Good 7 point list Lee. Yeah unless we learn some great new physics or > manufacturing trick. Interstellar travel will be extreamly expensive and > limited. Commercial options are nil, and even self supporting colonies would > be impossible. Explorers only for a while. > > Kelly That is true, but lets remember most of mans great works have not made money... pyramids ... great cathedrals .. the mona lisa painting... it is only in the last 5000 years has man got greedy and needs to charge $ for everything. -- "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 Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3289" "Saturday" "15" "April" "2000" "14:59:44" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "61" "RE: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3289 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3FK2qP00166 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 13:02:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3FK2o400158 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 13:02:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p474.gnt.com [204.49.91.90]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id PAA20461; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 15:02:36 -0500 Message-ID: <002001bfa715$7692d7b0$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: <38F8B19A.FAF611B5@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 travel Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 14:59:44 -0500 > Ben Franchuk wrote: > > That is true, but lets remember most of mans great works > have not made money... pyramids ... great cathedrals .. the mona lisa > painting... it is only in the last 5000 years has man got greedy > and needs to charge $ for everything. > Oh, but the pyramids DID cost $, lots of it. It was made from stone and brick and mortar and the sweat and blood of craftsmen and slaves. All of these things had value then as they do now. The Sistine chapel was paid for in currency, the Mona Lisa (not a good example) was a commission. The difference is nil; typically, a GOVERNMENT paid for those monuments, just as the US government paid for that little flag sitting on Moon. I am not saying that we won't go to another star, I am saying that it will be government funded for a LONG time. It will continue to be done as a "monument" - "see, I was here", not as part of a commercial enterprise. The commercialization of space WILL happen, but it will be intrasystem for a long, long time. We will harvest our asteroids, our comets, our moons and eventually even the Oort cloud, but until interstellar travel becomes dirt cheap, at least as cheap as intrasystem travel, it won't be done by commercial concerns which unlike governments are driven by profit motives. Borrowing a page from SF writers, there is a point where it will become cheap enough to support a colony that is looking to escape Earth's influence or just do their own thing, but even these missions will come long after the first government sponsored probes return. The colonist's won't be driven by a profit motive, but will still be constrained by the cost of the mission, which most likely will be less within fifty to a hundred years. Time frame? I still believe that the first probes may leave within fifty years. Perhaps a manned science mission within 75 - 100 years. This presupposes that there are no "breakthroughs" of course. One of the key requirements will take fifty years to put in place - infrastructure. We have NO space-based manufacturing infrastructure at all. It will require a substantial presence in Earth orbit, solar orbit, lunar orbit, etc. to build any large interstellar vessel. It takes time to build such an infrastructure and TRILLIONS of dollars. Which means that there has to be some other, profit-based motivation capable of supporting such a large industrial base. As we have just seen, interstellar travel will not provide such a motive. Now let us talk about something that WILL provide a profit motive. Knowledge. If we were to discover not just an inhabitable planet, but an inhabited planet. Even if it wasn't as technically advanced as we, the cross-referencing of knowledge alone could be worth far more than anyone could imagine. An obscure drug to cure cancer, a better understanding of the process of life that leads to anti-aging treatments, a new chemical process that allows the creation of better computers. Who knows, the list is endless. Even though these are all speculative profits, corporations do understand them and routinely base their planning and spending upon them. To sum it up, government spending will get us to the stars, commercial motives will keep us there. There will likely be a definite ordered progression in the process. Lee From VM Mon Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1848" "Saturday" "15" "April" "2000" "14:31:26" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "40" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1848 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3FKQI206674 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 13:26:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3FKQE406648 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 13:26:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin56.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.56]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA08340; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 14:25:57 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38F8D19E.8E7C2D5@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: <002001bfa715$7692d7b0$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: lparker@cacaphony.net CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 14:31:26 -0600 > > We have NO space-based manufacturing infrastructure at all. It will require > a substantial presence in Earth orbit, solar orbit, lunar orbit, etc. to > build any large interstellar vessel. It takes time to build such an > infrastructure and TRILLIONS of dollars. Which means that there has to be > some other, profit-based motivation capable of supporting such a large > industrial base. As we have just seen, interstellar travel will not provide > such a motive. Well now is the time to design and dream about the infrastructure, because once investment is done, that will freeze development along one path and that may not be the way to go. ( this includes investment that bypasses space for other quicker get rich ideas ). > Now let us talk about something that WILL provide a profit motive. > Knowledge. If we were to discover not just an inhabitable planet, but an > inhabited planet. Even if it wasn't as technically advanced as we, the > cross-referencing of knowledge alone could be worth far more than anyone > could imagine. An obscure drug to cure cancer, a better understanding of the > process of life that leads to anti-aging treatments, a new chemical process > that allows the creation of better computers. Who knows, the list is > endless. That is a very good point. > > Even though these are all speculative profits, corporations do understand > them and routinely base their planning and spending upon them. To sum it up, > government spending will get us to the stars, commercial motives will keep > us there. There will likely be a definite ordered progression in the > process. > Well lets get the ball rolling... > 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 Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["837" "Saturday" "15" "April" "2000" "20:58:08" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "25" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 837 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3G0wrn19794 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 17:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3G0wq419788 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 17:58:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.7e.3956f77 (3932); Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:58:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7e.3956f77.262a6a20@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: FTL travel Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:58:08 EDT In a message dated 4/15/00 1:09:38 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> Good 7 point list Lee. Yeah unless we learn some great new physics or >> manufacturing trick. Interstellar travel will be extreamly expensive >and >> limited. Commercial options are nil, and even self supporting colonies >would >> be impossible. Explorers only for a while. >> >> Kelly > >That is true, but lets remember most of mans great works >have not made money... pyramids ... great cathedrals .. the mona lisa >painting... it is only in the last 5000 years has man got greedy >and needs to charge $ for everything. Well the Mona Lisa was obviously a commercial project, and the other two were built for national prestigue or trying to suck up to god. Obviously not a good basis for exploratin or colonization. Kelly From VM Mon Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1420" "Sunday" "16" "April" "2000" "12:00:11" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "39" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1420 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3GHslX09251 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:54:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3GHsj409244 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:54:45 -0700 (PDT) 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 LAA21440; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 11:54:39 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38F9FFAB.8DDE2D42@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: <002501bfa7ad$459a63b0$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: lparker@cacaphony.net, "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:00:11 -0600 "L. Parker" wrote: > > > Well lets get the ball rolling... > > That is why I keep forwarding all those space access posts, If we don't get > started on the infrastructure, it will never happen. Low cost access to > space is the first step. > > BTW, you should look at Delta Clipper. They killed the best possibility for > a lander for an interstellar mission. Strong, robust, land anywhere and > single stage to orbit.... > > Lee It is a good design, but better for a smaller gravity well than the earth. When we get to interstellar travel a beamed energy craft that looks a lot like the general saucer shaped could be the ticket, or a electro-static fusion lander. For bootstrapping into space, I bet my $.43 for a 3 stage Reusable craft. Manned CH4,O2 plane launch to high alitude, just under mach 1. Chemical rocket to mach 23 isp 325,(unmmaned cargo pod). Beamed energy docking craft to mach 26, isp 650. Docking craft captures the cargo pod and places it into orbit. It also handles the reentry breaking on the cargo pod.The cargo pod uses simple winged reentry system. While it looks more complex, it splits up the transport to better matched pieces, since cargo is the ticket to space travel, not people. Ben. -- "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents... We borrow it from our children." The Lagging edge of technology: http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/woodelf/index.html From VM Mon Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2129" "Sunday" "16" "April" "2000" "13:36:43" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "46" "RE: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2129 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3GIc0R20755 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 11:38:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3GIbx420717 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 11:37:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p449.gnt.com [204.49.91.65]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id NAA20909; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 13:37:48 -0500 Message-ID: <003101bfa7d2$c8142f40$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: <38F9FFAB.8DDE2D42@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'" , Subject: RE: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 13:36:43 -0500 > It is a good design, but better for a smaller gravity well than the > earth. > When we get to interstellar travel a beamed energy craft that looks a > lot > like the general saucer shaped could be the ticket, or a > electro-static > fusion lander. > > For bootstrapping into space, I bet my $.43 for a 3 stage Reusable > craft. > Manned CH4,O2 plane launch to high alitude, just under mach > 1. Chemical > rocket to mach 23 isp 325,(unmmaned cargo pod). Beamed energy docking > craft to mach 26, isp 650. Docking craft captures the cargo pod and > places it into orbit. It also > handles the reentry breaking on the cargo pod.The cargo pod > uses simple > winged reentry system. > While it looks more complex, it splits up the transport to better > matched > pieces, since cargo is the ticket to space travel, not people. > Ben. I agree that from a strictly Earth oriented point of view that Horizontal Take Off and Landing (HTOL) is preferable to Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL) and that multi stage may well be more practical that Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO). But this all assumes a large ground infrastructure of runways, launch facilities, and personnel. The Delta Clipper needed none of that. True, the DC-X was not able to lift out of Earth's gravity well, but it was simply a test bed for the full scale design, similar to the way Venture Star is proposed. (Only DC-X was meeting its design goals, Venture Star is NOT.) A full blown Delta Clipper could have two crew members and 10 tons of cargo and/or passengers to Low Earth Orbit or 2 crew members and 5 tons of cargo/passengers to Polar Orbit. This is not a great amount compared to the Shuttle, but its lack of need for ground facilities is the telling point. Coupled with airplane like operations (quick, no-fuss turnaround), even a first generation Delta Clipper would have sufficed as a landing craft for an interstellar mission. Of course, the worst part of this is that the full scale DC-Y prototype could have been flying by 1997 with Delta Clipper in full operation by 2000. We would ALREADY be seeing a 90% reduction in launch costs today... Lee From VM Mon Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["365" "Sunday" "16" "April" "2000" "15:37:18" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "13" "Re: RE: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 365 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3GJbTx06719 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3GJbS406710 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:37:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.e4.3bfdeb2 (4239) for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:37:19 -0400 (EDT) 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: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:37:18 EDT In a message dated 4/16/00 1:38:21 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >Of course, the worst part of this is that the full scale DC-Y prototype >could have been flying by 1997 with Delta Clipper in full operation by >2000. >We would ALREADY be seeing a 90% reduction in launch costs today... > >Lee Certainly a nightmae senerio from NASA's stand point. :\ Kelly From VM Mon Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["991" "Sunday" "16" "April" "2000" "15:37:16" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "26" "starship-design: Re: No Subject" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 991 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3GJbTr06714 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3GJbR406708 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:37:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.14.284b23a (4239); Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:37:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <14.284b23a.262b706c@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: Cometcatch@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: No Subject Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:37:16 EDT In a message dated 4/16/00 1:50:37 PM, Cometcatch writes: >Hello. Read some of your papers. Could you tell me who is Robert Bussard, >where he did his work, what years? >Thanks. >E-mail: Cometcatch@aol.com Hi, He was a physicist. He started his career in the 60's I think. Don't know where he worked, but a libraries "Who's Who" reference book should list it all. You can also get a list of all the stuff he's published. His most famous idea is called a "Bussard Ramscoop stardrive". The idea was that you could scoop up interstellar hydrogen in flight, fuse it for thrust, and accelerate. Effectively a star ship engine that you wouldn't need to carry any fuel for. The idea doesn't look like it would work, since there is so little interstellar hydrogen in our area, and the drag from the huge magnetic fields would slow you down faster then the fusion rockets could accelerate you, but it was a very interesting idea. Hope this helps. Glad you like the site! Kelly From VM Mon Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1550" "Sunday" "16" "April" "2000" "15:37:21" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "48" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1550 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3GJbXU06769 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:37:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3GJbW406733 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:37:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.22.4878fcc (4239) for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:37:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <22.4878fcc.262b7071@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: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:37:21 EDT In a message dated 4/16/00 12:56:00 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >"L. Parker" wrote: >> >> > Well lets get the ball rolling... >> >> That is why I keep forwarding all those space access posts, If we don't >get >> started on the infrastructure, it will never happen. Low cost access >to >> space is the first step. >> >> BTW, you should look at Delta Clipper. They killed the best possibility >for >> a lander for an interstellar mission. Strong, robust, land anywhere and >> single stage to orbit.... Certainly killed the best chance for a low cost launcher in the current day. Which is very likely the reason NASA killed it. >> Lee > >It is a good design, but better for a smaller gravity well than the >earth.== It was designed for a grav like Earths? >For bootstrapping into space, I bet my $.43 for a 3 stage Reusable >craft. >Manned CH4,O2 plane launch to high alitude, just under mach 1. Chemical >rocket to mach 23 isp 325,(unmmaned cargo pod). Beamed energy docking >craft to mach 26, isp 650. Docking craft captures the cargo pod and >places it into orbit. It also >handles the reentry breaking on the cargo pod.The cargo pod uses simple >winged reentry system. >While it looks more complex, it splits up the transport to better >matched >pieces, since cargo is the ticket to space travel, not people. This would cost a fortune! You've got three times the servicing headaches, plus three times the vehicle design and integratin headaches. To lower costs - keep it simple, servicable, and flying a lot. >Ben. Kelly From VM Mon Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1294" "Sunday" "16" "April" "2000" "15:08:03" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "27" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1294 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3GL2cC01451 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 14:02:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3GL2b401442 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 14:02:37 -0700 (PDT) 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 PAA29660 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:02:31 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FA2BB3.D46A24A3@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: <22.4878fcc.262b7071@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: FTL travel Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:08:03 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > This would cost a fortune! You've got three times the servicing headaches, > plus three times the vehicle design and integratin headaches. To lower costs > - keep it simple, servicable, and flying a lot. > This is a simple design.. 1 segment does 1 job. Piloted craft, to carry Orbital pod,a 30 minute flight to provide a simple air launch. Because the launch is < the speed of sound a simple craft is needed. Orbital pod then has the advantage of better ISP for the rocket motors and being unmanned can follow a simple flight path with a simple autopilot, and not need the over head of manned life support. The capture stage provides the fine navigation control for space station docking. The higher ISP because this is beamed energy rocket counter acts the mass of the capture craft, and saves weight on the orbital pod for guidance and reentry controls. The assume that the fueled capture craft always stays in orbit, and I have manned space station in orbit,with beamed energy collectors. This is not 100% bootstapable at the moment, is the really big flaw. 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 Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1499" "Monday" "17" "April" "2000" "02:39:12" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "34" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1499 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3H6e8e13002 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 23:40:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3H6e7412996 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 23:40:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.16.29daf0d (4215); Mon, 17 Apr 2000 02:39:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <16.29daf0d.262c0b90@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: FTL travel Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 02:39:12 EDT In a message dated 4/16/00 4:02:48 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> This would cost a fortune! You've got three times the servicing headaches, >> plus three times the vehicle design and integratin headaches. To lower >costs >> - keep it simple, servicable, and flying a lot. >> >This is a simple design.. 1 segment does 1 job. >Piloted craft, to carry Orbital pod,a 30 minute flight to provide >a simple air launch. Because the launch is < the speed of sound a >simple craft is needed. Orbital pod then has the advantage of better >ISP for the rocket motors and being unmanned can follow a simple >flight path with a simple autopilot, and not need the over head of >manned life support. The capture stage provides the fine navigation >control for space station docking. The higher ISP because this is >beamed energy rocket counter acts the mass of the capture craft, >and saves weight on the orbital pod for guidance and reentry controls. >The assume that the fueled capture craft always stays in orbit, >and I have manned space station in orbit,with beamed energy collectors. I realize. the segments aremore effocent, but that doesn't mean cheaper or more relyable. Energy or fuel costs to orbit are trivial, its only the operating costs and relyability that are significant. This system is more complex, and therefore likly to be less relyable or cheap to operate. >This is not 100% bootstapable at the moment, is the really big flaw. >Ben. Kelly From VM Mon Apr 17 10:12:08 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1905" "Monday" "17" "April" "2000" "01:45:02" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "47" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1905 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3H7dWb27319 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 00:39:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3H7dU427306 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 00:39:30 -0700 (PDT) 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 BAA00753 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 01:39:28 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FAC0FE.572B3FCA@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: <16.29daf0d.262c0b90@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: FTL travel Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 01:45:02 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > I realize. the segments aremore effocent, but that doesn't mean cheaper or > more relyable. Energy or fuel costs to orbit are trivial, its only the > operating costs and relyability that are significant. This system is more > complex, and therefore likly to be less relyable or cheap to operate. > I don't know, as I have not built it, nor have the skill to build it or a regular SSTO craft, to find out. Unless you have a craft that is about the size of small aircraft that runs say 3 times a day 7 days a week, what ever design SSTO or TSTO, payload prices will not drop. This is a neat paper on really cheap space access, and gives some facts on projected launch costs. With a projected cost of about $60/kg for basic space access costs (fuel,operating costs),the price jumps to $600/kg for insurance, launch and profit margin for 4 fights a week.(300kg payload). http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/getting_to_low_earth_orbit.shtml Fuel costs on the shuttle is about $90/kg, so where does the remaining $19910 goes?Even greater losses are with the larger designs. While this does prove your point, it is something I think there is a large room for improvement. Guessing that CH4/O2 costs about the same as O2 / kerosene ( $35/kg ) we need to pick a realistic figure for costs. Say $150/kg... and a payload of 300kg with a unmanned craft. Assuming a 40:1 ratio that is 12 ton craft regardless of being SSTO or TSTO. That is too small to deliver nuclear war heads for the military, put man into space for NASA, or deliver stuff for Communications,but is the right size to build things in space, because it is the size ordinary people can still grasp and use. > > 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 Apr 17 17:36:31 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["594" "Monday" "17" "April" "2000" "20:26:14" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "20" "starship-design: books . . ." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 594 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3I0SBj01467 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 17:28:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3I0SA401461 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 17:28:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.96.243]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000418002803.EIJF9725.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:28:03 +0000 Message-ID: <38FBABA6.8192B94B@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: books . . . Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:26:14 -0400 For those wanting more about fusors: "Stellarator and Heliotron Devices", Masahiro Wakatani. Explains plasma physics for stellarators from the fundamental level, and examines the high-temperature plasma confinement devices known as heliotrons. 444 pages. Oxford. Pub. at $105 Cat. No. 599700 Price, $6.95, from Edward R. Hamilton Falls Village, CT 06031-5000 note 1: no, I haven't read it note 2: E. R. Hamilton is a cash-only mail order outfit, but prices are great, and there is a single, $3/order shipping charge. The catalog number above is Hamilton's. Happy reading, Curtis From VM Mon Apr 17 17:36:53 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2906" "Monday" "17" "April" "2000" "20:31:10" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "73" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2906 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3I0WI102757 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 17:32:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3I0WH402748 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 17:32:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.dd.33e5c0b (4206); Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:31:11 -0400 (EDT) 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: FTL travel Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:31:10 EDT In a message dated 4/17/00 2:40:49 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> I realize. the segments aremore effocent, but that doesn't mean cheaper >or >> more relyable. Energy or fuel costs to orbit are trivial, its only >the >> operating costs and relyability that are significant. This system is >more >> complex, and therefore likly to be less relyable or cheap to operate. >> > >I don't know, as I have not built it, nor have the skill to build it >or a regular SSTO craft, to find out. Unless you have a craft that >is about the size of small aircraft that runs say 3 times a day 7 days >a week, what ever design SSTO or TSTO, payload prices will not drop. Oh givern the curent $10,000 a pound launch costs its pretty trivial to get 90% cost reductions even with only the current launch rates. 99% reductins with reasonable rate increase is pretty doable. Assuming you can get the customers and reasonably intrest rates. >This is a neat paper on really cheap space access, and gives some >facts on projected launch costs. With a projected cost of about $60/kg >for basic space access costs (fuel,operating costs),the price jumps to >$600/kg for insurance, launch and profit margin for 4 fights a >week.(300kg payload). > >http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/getting_to_low_earth_orbit.shtml I'll have to check it out. >Fuel costs on the shuttle is about $90/kg, so where does the remaining >$19910 goes? It takes 4,000 technicians about 3 months of heavy work to prep a shuttle for launch. Labor and support costs about $200 million per flight. Drop tank costs about $60 million. A bit more to integrate the cargo. And assuming you don't need to much replacement parts - your up to $300 million before you do the launch and pay the mission and launch control peoples payrolls. $300,000,000 divided amoung 40,000 pounds of cargo is $7500 per pound already. Add in other expenses, or need to take longer to prep the shuttle for some reason, and you get up to or above$10 K per pound. >Even greater losses are with the larger designs. While this >does prove your point, it is something I think there is a large room for >improvement. Can't follow this? >Guessing that CH4/O2 costs about the same as O2 / kerosene ( $35/kg ) >we need to pick a realistic figure for costs. Say $150/kg... and a >payload >of 300kg with a unmanned craft. Assuming a 40:1 ratio that is 12 ton >craft >regardless of being SSTO or TSTO. That is too small to deliver nuclear >war heads for the military, put man into space for NASA, or deliver >stuff >for Communications,but is the right size to build things in space, >because >it is the size ordinary people can still grasp and use. Hate to tell you but in space you can lift and move tons by hand, and its very expensive and dangerous to break down large thinks into many small parts for on site assembly. Kelly From VM Tue Apr 18 09:58:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1132" "Monday" "17" "April" "2000" "22:08:37" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "28" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1132 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3I2AdO05506 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 19:10:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3I2Ac405499 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 19:10:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.97.95]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000418021030.HQLE9725.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 02:10:30 +0000 Message-ID: <38FBC3A5.ADFEBD1@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: starship Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 22:08:37 -0400 > That is too small to deliver nuclear > >war heads for the military, put man into space for NASA, or deliver > >stuff > >for Communications, Say, isn't the majority of commercial space business expected to be in launching/servicing comm sats? If your launch system can't handle this, you lose a lot of market . . . > but is the right size to build things in space, > >because > >it is the size ordinary people can still grasp and use. > > Hate to tell you but in space you can lift and move tons by hand, and its > very expensive and dangerous to break down large thinks into many small parts > for on site assembly. I had to wonder about this one, too. I think you'd be making a project more expensive by having to send it up in lots of small parts; more complex design, and I'm sure that labor costs for assembly will be, well, out of this world. ;-) This makes me wonder if there's some way to calculate a cost-break for modular assemblies. This would tell you that the cheapest approach would be so many chunks of such a size; more smaller ones or fewer, bigger ones would cost more. Anyone done that yet? > Kelly Curtis From VM Tue Apr 18 09:58:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2337" "Monday" "17" "April" "2000" "20:54:23" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "61" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2337 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3I2n3H16385 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 19:49:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3I2mw416370 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 19:49:02 -0700 (PDT) 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 UAA13873 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:48:44 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FBCE5F.C63E01A1@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: FTL travel Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:54:23 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > Oh givern the curent $10,000 a pound launch costs its pretty trivial to get > 90% cost reductions even with only the current launch rates. 99% reductins > with reasonable rate increase is pretty doable. Assuming you can get the > customers and reasonably intrest rates. > I still think $150 per kg to LEO is a goal we need to set for the best price of orbital costs. > > It takes 4,000 technicians about 3 months of heavy work to prep a shuttle for > launch. Labor and support costs about $200 million per flight. Drop tank > costs about $60 million. A bit more to integrate the cargo. And assuming > you don't need to much replacement parts - your up to $300 million before you > do the launch and pay the mission and launch control peoples payrolls. > Well that explains why nobody wants to improve the space program, 3,500+ people would be out of work and the drop tank people out of a job. > Hate to tell you but in space you can lift and move tons by hand, and its > very expensive and dangerous to break down large thinks into many small parts > for on site assembly. > Nope ... inertia is the same. Because F=MA you can in theory move any object if that object moves very very slowly. A guy working in a space suit does face some risk of injury, but not as much as the movies and tv makes out. With pure O2 at 3 lbs pressure in a space suit a complete loss of air is not fatal providing the person can reach shelter with in two minutes ,from a rip or tear in the suit. I do admit many things taken for granted - turning a wrench, boiling water , having sex ; do change in space and that is the challenge of the environment. Things are more expensive in space ( ignoring the cost of getting there) because things have to be done by hand, something that the industrial revolution has caused people to forget. Guy S may take 8 hours to assemble a prefrabicated wall in space, guy E 10 minutes using power tools and assembly line fabrication. Why do I get the feeling that space access will be run by big companies who's goal is profit, like the Company towns for Coal mining? > Kelly 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 Apr 18 09:58:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1553" "Monday" "17" "April" "2000" "21:16:38" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "39" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1553 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3I3BC022211 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:11:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3I3B4422187 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:11:05 -0700 (PDT) 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 VAA14876 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:10:59 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FBD396.A71E4249@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: <38FBC3A5.ADFEBD1@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: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:16:38 -0600 Curtis Manges wrote: > I had to wonder about this one, too. I think you'd be making a project more > expensive by having to send it up in lots of small parts; more complex design, > and I'm sure that labor costs for assembly will be, well, out of this world. ;-) I think labor costs will be lower because you don't need a PHD to assemble a wall. SPACE ACCESS does show how STUPID some ideas of values are, because it shows the real cost of food,shelter, envorment ,greed that we all take for granted. > This makes me wonder if there's some way to calculate a cost-break for modular > assemblies. This would tell you that the cheapest approach would be so many > chunks of such a size; more smaller ones or fewer, bigger ones would cost more. > Anyone done that yet? Modular assemblies always cost more, but they spread out the risk of failure. You put a dent in a wall panel ( stray meteor? ) you replace the panel. A pre fabricated room needs the whole room replaced. Bigger is not better, just more profit because the money saved goes to the greedy stock holders. We need CONDO'S in space not apartments. For the up until the last 6000 years man has lived with out money, why now is money the only thing of value? It seems the only way to get MAN into space is to KEEP MAN out of space craft. Man can't live in space if we can't build a home in space. -- "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 Apr 18 09:58:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1488" "Tuesday" "18" "April" "2000" "00:22:21" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "52" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1488 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3I4MXY12761 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:22:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3I4MW412736 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:22:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.c1.266c717 (4197) for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:22:21 -0400 (EDT) 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: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:22:21 EDT In a message dated 4/17/00 9:11:53 PM, clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: >> That is too small to deliver nuclear >> >war heads for the military, put man into space for NASA, or deliver >> >stuff >> >for Communications, > >Say, isn't the majority of commercial space business expected to be in >launching/servicing comm sats? If your launch system can't handle this, >you lose >a lot of market . . . True and another good reason for larger launchers. >> but is the right size to build things in space, >> >because >> >it is the size ordinary people can still grasp and use. >> >> Hate to tell you but in space you can lift and move tons by hand, and >its >> very expensive and dangerous to break down large thinks into many small >parts >> for on site assembly. > >I had to wonder about this one, too. I think you'd be making a project >more >expensive by having to send it up in lots of small parts; more complex >design, >and I'm sure that labor costs for assembly will be, well, out of this world. >;-) >This makes me wonder if there's some way to calculate a cost-break for >modular >assemblies. This would tell you that the cheapest approach would be so >many >chunks of such a size; more smaller ones or fewer, bigger ones would cost >more. >Anyone done that yet? Except the transport headaches, building it in as few parts as possible is always vastly superior, safer, and cheaper! Course if you can't lift it in that form, your out of luck. >> Kelly > >Curtis Kelly From VM Tue Apr 18 09:58:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2773" "Tuesday" "18" "April" "2000" "00:22:23" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "86" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2773 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3I4N8312874 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3I4N7412864 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.5b.4a271ec (4197); Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:22:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5b.4a271ec.262d3cff@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: FTL travel Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:22:23 EDT In a message dated 4/17/00 9:49:52 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> Oh givern the curent $10,000 a pound launch costs its pretty trivial >to get >> 90% cost reductions even with only the current launch rates. 99% reductins >> with reasonable rate increase is pretty doable. Assuming you can get >the >> customers and reasonably intrest rates. >> > > I still think $150 per kg to LEO is a goal we need to set for the best >price of orbital costs. Best price? In theory, it should (with a similar sized market) converge to the price of trans pacific air freight. About $5 a pound. This is because the general complexity and power levels are similar. I worked out some absolute minimam costs assuming beamed powe steam rockets of under a $1 a pound in bulk. (I think it was about that.) Obviously we won't bother with a starship or anything untill were doing a LOT of surface to LEO flights. >> It takes 4,000 technicians about 3 months of heavy work to prep a shuttle >for >> launch. Labor and support costs about $200 million per flight. Drop >tank >> costs about $60 million. A bit more to integrate the cargo. And assuming >> you don't need to much replacement parts - your up to $300 million before >you >> do the launch and pay the mission and launch control peoples payrolls. >> > > Well that explains why nobody wants to improve the space program, >3,500+ people would be out of work and the drop tank people out of a >job. At a minimum. When the Air Force was looking in to it, their shuttle replacement could relaunch withing 24 hours with a complete grond crew of under 100, and no mission control. >> Hate to tell you but in space you can lift and move tons by hand, and >its >> very expensive and dangerous to break down large thinks into many small >parts >> for on site assembly. >> > >Nope ... inertia is the same. Because F=MA you can in theory move any > >object if that object moves very very slowly. Inertion isn't the big issue in moving multi ton opjects. >== > >Things are more expensive in space ( ignoring the cost of getting there) >because things have to be done by hand, something that the industrial >revolution has caused people to forget. Guy S may take 8 hours to >assemble >a prefrabicated wall in space, guy E 10 minutes using power tools and >assembly line fabrication. Well if you do the assembly on the ground its not as big an issue >Why do I get the feeling that space access >will be run by big companies who's goal is profit, like the Company >towns >for Coal mining? Or the big resort complexes or liners. Given the highly educated techs these systems usually use, your not likely to get away with rough consructin camp type facilities. >> Kelly >Ben. Kelly From VM Tue Apr 18 09:58:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1881" "Tuesday" "18" "April" "2000" "00:22:25" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "55" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1881 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3I4NE312895 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3I4ND412888 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:23:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.3e.293f51f (4197); Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:22:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3e.293f51f.262d3d01@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: FTL travel Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:22:25 EDT In a message dated 4/17/00 10:12:59 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >Curtis Manges wrote: > >> I had to wonder about this one, too. I think you'd be making a project >more >> expensive by having to send it up in lots of small parts; more complex >design, >> and I'm sure that labor costs for assembly will be, well, out of this >world. ;-) > >I think labor costs will be lower because you don't need a PHD to >assemble >a wall. SPACE ACCESS does show how STUPID some ideas of values are, >because >it shows the real cost of food,shelter, envorment ,greed that we all >take for granted. > >> This makes me wonder if there's some way to calculate a cost-break for >modular >> assemblies. This would tell you that the cheapest approach would be so >many >> chunks of such a size; more smaller ones or fewer, bigger ones would >cost more. >> Anyone done that yet? > >Modular assemblies always cost more, but they spread out the risk of >failure. >You put a dent in a wall panel ( stray meteor? ) you replace the panel. >A pre >fabricated room needs the whole room replaced. You forget, your talking about things like aircraft or ships. You don't want a aircraft thats shiped to you in a hundred parts. Odds are it would leak like a sive and all those joints and sockets would work lose. >Bigger is not better, >just more >profit because the money saved goes to the greedy stock holders. If you don't pay folks what their work is worth, they won't do it for you. >We need CONDO'S in space not apartments. For the up until the last 6000 >years >man has lived with out money, why now is money the only thing of value? Money isn't of value, its the MEASURE OF value! Waste money, and your wasteing resources and absolute value. >It seems the only way to get MAN into space is to KEEP MAN out of space >craft. >Man can't live in space if we can't build a home in space. From VM Tue Apr 18 09:58:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2084" "Tuesday" "18" "April" "2000" "00:04:19" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "55" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2084 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3I5wr706970 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 22:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3I5wm406951 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 22:58:52 -0700 (PDT) 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 XAA22509 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 23:58:40 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FBFAE3.D53366FF@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.293f51f.262d3d01@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: FTL travel Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:04:19 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > You forget, your talking about things like aircraft or ships. You don't want > a aircraft thats shiped to you in a hundred parts. Odds are it would leak > like a sive and all those joints and sockets would work lose. > My GOD that is what duct tape is for! You must think everything comes from a FACTORY already assembled. HOW THE FUCK does the FACTORY make the stuff,if not from hundreds of parts. You can build your own home,rent a apartment or buy a condo to live in, why can't I have the same choice in space? Things welded together is the strongest way of joining things and electric spot welding aluminum sounds like it would work in space. Remember air pressure is about 5 PSI not 15 PSI on earth. > > >Bigger is not better, > >just more > >profit because the money saved goes to the greedy stock holders. > > If you don't pay folks what their work is worth, they won't do it for you. > > >We need CONDO'S in space not apartments. For the up until the last 6000 > >years > >man has lived with out money, why now is money the only thing of value? > > Money isn't of value, its the MEASURE OF value! Waste money, and your > wasteing resources and absolute value. > Money is a measure of talent not value... How much money is a loving family or a good friend or a life worth. I don't make much money does that mean I have NO value in designing spacecraft? I am working on a nice CPU design, just because I cant make money from it is worth less? What is the price of knowledge? > > >It seems the only way to get MAN into space is to KEEP MAN out of space > >craft. > >Man can't live in space if we can't build a home in space. It is a real pain that one has to fight the social/economic system to get launch costs down. Ben. PS I don't agree with the current social / economic system we live in, nothing personal with my sharp remarks. -- "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 Apr 18 09:58:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1770" "Tuesday" "18" "April" "2000" "00:28:14" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "46" "starship-design: Inter-planetary craft" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1770 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3I6MdJ12041 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 23:22:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3I6Mc412033 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 23:22:38 -0700 (PDT) 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 AAA23552 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:22:35 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FC007E.68AA6AE@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: <5b.4a271ec.262d3cff@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: starship-design: Inter-planetary craft Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:28:14 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 4/17/00 9:49:52 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: > Best price? In theory, it should (with a similar sized market) converge to > the price of trans pacific air freight. About $5 a pound. This is because > the general complexity and power levels are similar. Can we safely say $150 kg for near term launch costs @ 1 ton payloads? I would like to design for interplantary craft. Until one has a design for that constructed and working one can't even guess on inter-stelar craft of any type. > > I worked out some absolute minimam costs assuming beamed powe steam rockets > of under a $1 a pound in bulk. (I think it was about that.) > > Obviously we won't bother with a starship or anything untill were doing a LOT > of surface to LEO flights. > Beamed energy is still energy hungery. If I remember right it is 25 watts per ISP unit. Focus and heat is the limiting factors. Where does the energy come from? Solar, fusion, fisson power sources? > At a minimum. When the Air Force was looking in to it, their shuttle > replacement could relaunch withing 24 hours with a complete grond crew of > under 100, and no mission control. > Funny a small plane can fly again with just a fill up with fuel. Why need space be different? > Or the big resort complexes or liners. Given the highly educated techs these > systems usually use, your not likely to get away with rough consructin camp > type facilities. I want to build a small complex with say 75 people in a habitat, not the empire state building.(25 rooms). -- "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 Apr 18 18:18:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3023" "Tuesday" "18" "April" "2000" "21:15:19" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "85" "Re: starship-design: Inter-planetary craft" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3023 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3J1FTK04291 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 18:15:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3J1FS404276 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 18:15:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.9.460502d (9726) for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:15:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9.460502d.262e62a7@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: Inter-planetary craft Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:15:19 EDT In a message dated 4/18/00 1:23:12 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> In a message dated 4/17/00 9:49:52 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: > >> Best price? In theory, it should (with a similar sized market) converge >to >> the price of trans pacific air freight. About $5 a pound. This is because >> the general complexity and power levels are similar. > >Can we safely say $150 kg for near term launch costs @ 1 ton payloads? No. You need to define the amount of cargo to be launched. If you want to launch a hand full of components like the ISS space station, you probably could support a launcher system much below $2000 a Kilo. You want to build and operat a space hotel like in 2001. You could probably get well below $100 a kilo. >== >> I worked out some absolute minimam costs assuming beamed powe steam rockets >> of under a $1 a pound in bulk. (I think it was about that.) >> >> Obviously we won't bother with a starship or anything untill were doing >a LOT >> of surface to LEO flights. >> > Beamed energy is still energy hungery. If I remember right it is >25 watts per ISP unit. Focus and heat is the limiting factors. Where >does the energy come from? Solar, fusion, fisson power sources? If its beamed up its from the comercial power grid. 25 watts per isp is nonsence. ISP would vary wildly with the type of rocket and the reacti mass its using. >> At a minimum. When the Air Force was looking in to it, their shuttle >> replacement could relaunch withing 24 hours with a complete grond crew >of >> under 100, and no mission control. >> > Funny a small plane can fly again with just a fill up with fuel. >Why need space be different? Same reason fighter planes need hours of servicing between flights. Higher performance, higher stress systems pushed closer to limits. More complex systems. It'll be a while before we can make something with margins so thick you can take such chances. Oh, but you NEVER just fuel and fly a small plane. You always spend some time doing sheck out on it. And every so often its taken to a machanich to tear down andrebuild and inspect. >> Or the big resort complexes or liners. Given the highly educated techs >these >> systems usually use, your not likely to get away with rough consructin >camp >> type facilities. > >I want to build a small complex with say 75 people in a habitat, not >the empire state building.(25 rooms). You couldn't possibly afford it, or support it. A bigger platform you could. Your small platforms would need to wait until after soimeone built the big ones. Also you need a platform big enough to spin for full gravity. ===== >http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/getting_to_low_earth_orbit.shtml Good artical! >Guessing that CH4/O2 costs about the same as O2 / kerosene ( $35/kg ) >we need to pick a realistic figure for costs. Wait a minutte. Liquid O2 costs about $0.05 a pound and I think kerosines about $0.25 a pound? Where do you get $35 a kilo? From VM Tue Apr 18 18:18:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3326" "Tuesday" "18" "April" "2000" "21:15:17" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "103" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3326 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3J1G5q04410 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 18:16:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3J1G4404403 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 18:16:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.d6.284282d (9726); Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:15:17 -0400 (EDT) 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: FTL travel Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:15:17 EDT In a message dated 4/18/00 1:00:49 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> You forget, your talking about things like aircraft or ships. You don't >want >> a aircraft thats shiped to you in a hundred parts. Odds are it would >leak >> like a sive and all those joints and sockets would work lose. >> > > My GOD that is what duct tape is for! To hold the air into a space ship!!! Are you nutz!!! NO ONE accepts a 40 foot yacht shiped to them in ten 4 foot peaces peaces to be bolted together in the water. NO one acepts an aircraft whos wings were to be duct taped together from 4 fot sections. Get real! > You must think everything comes from a FACTORY already assembled. > HOW THE FUCK does the FACTORY make the stuff,if not from hundreds of >parts. Because they ae building it in a factory. Where they have construction gigs, can crawl all over the thing to test it, have full assess to personell and any test device nessisary. None that is avalible in space or in the field. > You can build your own home,rent a apartment or buy a condo to live > in, why can't I have the same choice in space? Be cause condos don''t blow up and shreed the nieghborhood if you do a bad job on the siding. And carpenters don't need to work in a full presure suit in a high radiatin environment. Its not a doit your selfer job. > Things welded together is the strongest way of joining things and >electric spot welding aluminum sounds like it would work in space. > Remember air pressure is about 5 PSI not 15 PSI on earth. No, the presure is 15 PSI 14.7 to be specific.. >> >> >Bigger is not better, >> >just more >> >profit because the money saved goes to the greedy stock holders. >> >> If you don't pay folks what their work is worth, they won't do it for >you. >> >> >We need CONDO'S in space not apartments. For the up until the last 6000 >> >years >> >man has lived with out money, why now is money the only thing of value? >> >> Money isn't of value, its the MEASURE OF value! Waste money, and your >> wasteing resources and absolute value. >> > Money is a measure of talent not value... No talent is one type of value. >How much money is >a loving family or a good friend or a life worth. Check your insurence company. They have detailed charts. >I don't make much >money does that mean I have NO value in designing spacecraft? How much has anyone offered to pay you? >I am working on a nice CPU design, just because I cant make money >from it is worth less? What is the price of knowledge? Try to sell it. Compare what you can get relative to the pros. Do the math. >> >It seems the only way to get MAN into space is to KEEP MAN out of space >> >craft. >> >Man can't live in space if we can't build a home in space. > >It is a real pain that one has to fight the social/economic system >to get launch costs down. You don't fight it. Thats as stupid as cursing the law of gravity. You figure out whats needed. To lower costs, you must change the system and develop a market to support low cost operations. >Ben. >PS I don't agree with the current social / economic system we live >in, nothing personal with my sharp remarks. Its the only one around that would try to support what you want to do. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Kelly From VM Wed Apr 19 10:04:27 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2914" "Tuesday" "18" "April" "2000" "20:43:05" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "88" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2914 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3J2bRl29663 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 19:37:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3J2bP429626 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 19:37:26 -0700 (PDT) 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 UAA06618 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:37:22 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FD1D39.1A7E78EE@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: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:43:05 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 4/18/00 1:00:49 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: > > >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > My GOD that is what duct tape is for! > > To hold the air into a space ship!!! Are you nutz!!! NO ONE accepts a 40 > foot yacht shiped to them in ten 4 foot peaces peaces to be bolted together > in the water. NO one acepts an aircraft whos wings were to be duct taped > together from 4 fot sections. > > Get real! Get a sense of humor.... But then again was not duct tape used to fix the air filters for apollo 13? > > Because they ae building it in a factory. Where they have construction gigs, > can crawl all over the thing to test it, have full assess to personell and > any test device nessisary. None that is avalible in space or in the field. > > > You can build your own home,rent a apartment or buy a condo to live > > in, why can't I have the same choice in space? > > Be cause condos don''t blow up and shreed the nieghborhood if you do a bad > job on the siding. And carpenters don't need to work in a full presure suit > in a high radiatin environment. Its not a doit your selfer job. > Rockets blow up... a space habitat does not... Has anybody even considered it? Living areas require volume construction, and that type of construction has to be done some time in space. You get me into space and I will prove that one man could do it. > > > Things welded together is the strongest way of joining things and > >electric spot welding aluminum sounds like it would work in space. > > Remember air pressure is about 5 PSI not 15 PSI on earth. > > No, the presure is 15 PSI 14.7 to be specific.. Picky... > > Check your insurence company. They have detailed charts. > Money can't buy love. > >I am working on a nice CPU design, just because I cant make money > >from it is worth less? What is the price of knowledge? > > Try to sell it. Compare what you can get relative to the pros. Do the math. Hard to sell things with M$'s marketing clout telling you what to buy. > > You don't fight it. Thats as stupid as cursing the law of gravity. You > figure out whats needed. To lower costs, you must change the system and > develop a market to support low cost operations. > The earth sucks... no law of gravity. You are right there. The system as I see it does not provide a system that would let small companies develop space transportation. I build a personal space/plane but can't get a permit to test or fly it. > Its the only one around that would try to support what you want to do. Don't > bite the hand that feeds you. > What if I don't like what the hand is feeding me? This is cat food... 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 Wed Apr 19 10:04:27 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2583" "Tuesday" "18" "April" "2000" "21:41:28" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "70" "Re: starship-design: Inter-planetary craft" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2583 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3J3Zr715994 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:35:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3J3Zp415985 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:35:51 -0700 (PDT) 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 VAA09630 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:35:45 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FD2AE8.EF4AE41E@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: <9.460502d.262e62a7@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: Inter-planetary craft Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:41:28 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > No. You need to define the amount of cargo to be launched. If you want to > launch a hand full of components like the ISS space station, you probably > could support a launcher system much below $2000 a Kilo. You want to build > and operat a space hotel like in 2001. You could probably get well below > $100 a kilo. Daily for 500 kg craft: 5 people ( manned craft )-- 500 kg 1 launch 1,500 kg ( unmanned ) cargo/bulk fuel. 3 launches > 25 watts per isp is nonsence. ISP would vary wildly with the type of rocket > and the reacti mass its using. This a ball park figure for 100% efficient reaction engine from a energy stand point. > > Same reason fighter planes need hours of servicing between flights. Higher > performance, higher stress systems pushed closer to limits. More complex > systems. It'll be a while before we can make something with margins so thick > you can take such chances. > > Oh, but you NEVER just fuel and fly a small plane. You always spend some > time doing sheck out on it. And every so often its taken to a machanich to > tear down andrebuild and inspect. I don't say there will be no down time, but that is why you have several aircraft ready for flight. > > >I want to build a small complex with say 75 people in a habitat, not > >the empire state building.(25 rooms). > > You couldn't possibly afford it, or support it. A bigger platform you could. I just need to find 74 more people with the same interest. The bigger platform is cheaper makes no sense to me. > Your small platforms would need to wait until after soimeone built the big > ones. Also you need a platform big enough to spin for full gravity. This would about 2x the size of apartment building I liven, room for gardens and pets and play areas. > >Guessing that CH4/O2 costs about the same as O2 / kerosene ( $35/kg ) > >we need to pick a realistic figure for costs. > > Wait a minutte. Liquid O2 costs about $0.05 a pound and I think kerosines > about > $0.25 a pound? Where do you get $35 a kilo? That is fuel and base costs to place 1 kg in orbit. With about a 40:1 ratio for just fuel $11.20 . O2 is $.8 and $.20 for kerosene 1980 for 1 kg. http://www.friends-partners.org/~mwade/props/loxosene.htm I have no idea the price of CH4 so I am guessing here it is the same. liquid hydrogen is $3.80 for 1980 prices. 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 Wed Apr 19 15:10:49 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2834" "Wednesday" "19" "April" "2000" "18:02:19" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "87" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2834 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3JM2TW02955 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:02:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3JM2S402942 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.d0.4ab2ee9 (3706) for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:02:19 -0400 (EDT) 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: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:02:19 EDT >> > You can build your own home,rent a apartment or buy a condo to live >> > in, why can't I have the same choice in space? >> >> Be cause condos don''t blow up and shreed the nieghborhood if you do >a bad >> job on the siding. And carpenters don't need to work in a full presure >suit >> in a high radiatin environment. Its not a doit your selfer job. >> > > Rockets blow up... a space habitat does not... Its under 14.7 psi. Get a fracture and it will explode. > Has anybody even considered it? Living areas require volume > construction, and that type of construction has to be done some > time in space. You get me into space and I will prove that one man > could do it. Unless your building something huge its a wast of time. Easier to prefab it in major parts, and launch and dock the parts. Far easier. If you want something office building sized you could inflate a structure that size, or larger and asemble it in it. Harder though. >> > Things welded together is the strongest way of joining things and >> >electric spot welding aluminum sounds like it would work in space. >> > Remember air pressure is about 5 PSI not 15 PSI on earth. >> >> No, the presure is 15 PSI 14.7 to be specific.. > > Picky... > >> >> Check your insurence company. They have detailed charts. >> > Money can't buy love. Buy a dog. ;) Loved ones need money to support. >> >I am working on a nice CPU design, just because I cant make money >> >from it is worth less? What is the price of knowledge? >> >> Try to sell it. Compare what you can get relative to the pros. Do the >math. > > Hard to sell things with M$'s marketing clout telling you what to buy. The Linux or web groups might debate that. >> You don't fight it. Thats as stupid as cursing the law of gravity. >You >> figure out whats needed. To lower costs, you must change the system >and >> develop a market to support low cost operations. >> > >The earth sucks... no law of gravity. You are right there. The system as >I see >it does not provide a system that would let small companies develop >space transportation. I build a personal space/plane but can't get a >permit >to test or fly it. Sure you can. Several groups are doing so now. FAA is working to adapt their rules for comercial space plane dev now. >> Its the only one around that would try to support what you want to do. > Don't >> bite the hand that feeds you. >> > >What if I don't like what the hand is feeding me? This is cat food... You want to go into space. That take resources. You won't get them (past hobbiestlevels) unless you can convice folks you can pay them back - probably with a good amount of interest. If you can't pay your way, or interest enough contrabutions for fun or advertizing, you can't convince folks your worth the effort. Kelly From VM Wed Apr 19 15:10:49 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2826" "Wednesday" "19" "April" "2000" "18:02:23" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "84" "Re: starship-design: Inter-planetary craft" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2826 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3JM3GT03279 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3JM3F403266 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.cb.47acde9 (3706); Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:02:24 -0400 (EDT) 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: Inter-planetary craft Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:02:23 EDT In a message dated 4/18/00 10:36:29 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> No. You need to define the amount of cargo to be launched. If you want >to >> launch a hand full of components like the ISS space station, you probably >> could support a launcher system much below $2000 a Kilo. You want to >build >> and operat a space hotel like in 2001. You could probably get well below >> $100 a kilo. > >Daily for 500 kg craft: > >5 people ( manned craft )-- 500 kg 1 launch >1,500 kg ( unmanned ) cargo/bulk fuel. 3 launches 5 people weigh more then 500 kg. Besides thats to small, you couldn't carry anything interesting up. Unless of course you just want do do a tourist hop and come back down. >> Same reason fighter planes need hours of servicing between flights. >Higher >> performance, higher stress systems pushed closer to limits. More complex >> systems. It'll be a while before we can make something with margins >so thick >> you can take such chances. >> >> Oh, but you NEVER just fuel and fly a small plane. You always spend >some >> time doing sheck out on it. And every so often its taken to a machanich >to >> tear down andrebuild and inspect. > > I don't say there will be no down time, but that is why you have >several >aircraft ready for flight. > >> >> >I want to build a small complex with say 75 people in a habitat, not >> >the empire state building.(25 rooms). >> >> You couldn't possibly afford it, or support it. A bigger platform you >could. > > I just need to find 74 more people with the same interest. >The bigger platform is cheaper makes no sense to me. The bigger platform can use more eficent launcher systems, and has far more space to market. a 75 person platform couldn't keep a effoicent fleet operating. Unless it was a hotel that cycled folks down after a week or two? >> Your small platforms would need to wait until after soimeone built the >big >> ones. Also you need a platform big enough to spin for full gravity. > >This would about 2x the size of apartment building I liven, >room for gardens and pets and play areas. > >> >Guessing that CH4/O2 costs about the same as O2 / kerosene ( $35/kg >) >> >we need to pick a realistic figure for costs. >> >> Wait a minutte. Liquid O2 costs about $0.05 a pound and I think kerosines >> about >> $0.25 a pound? Where do you get $35 a kilo? > >That is fuel and base costs to place 1 kg in orbit. >With about a 40:1 ratio for just fuel $11.20 >. >O2 is $.8 and $.20 for kerosene 1980 for 1 kg. >http://www.friends-partners.org/~mwade/props/loxosene.htm > >I have no idea the price of CH4 so I am guessing here it is the same. >liquid hydrogen is $3.80 for 1980 prices. Liquid hydrogen was about $1 a pound, CH4 is a lot cheaper since it has more comercial use. > >Ben. From VM Wed Apr 19 16:18:01 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1122" "Wednesday" "19" "April" "2000" "17:11:47" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "29" "Re: starship-design: Inter-planetary craft" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1122 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3JN6Ed09796 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:06:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3JN6C409783 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:06:12 -0700 (PDT) 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 RAA21266 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:06:02 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FE3D33.A00C7820@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: Inter-planetary craft Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:11:47 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > >5 people ( manned craft )-- 500 kg 1 launch > >1,500 kg ( unmanned ) cargo/bulk fuel. 3 launches > > 5 people weigh more then 500 kg. Besides thats to small, you couldn't carry > anything interesting up. Unless of course you just want do do a tourist hop > and come back down. > I am sure 5 people a day would love to get into space for a $10,000 if it was based on the cost of fuel not the price of custom designer rockets,for every launch. > > The bigger platform can use more eficent launcher systems, and has far more > space to market. a 75 person platform couldn't keep a effoicent fleet > operating. Unless it was a hotel that cycled folks down after a week or two? > A medium plane has say 75 passengers as a guess. The same size space/plane would carry 6 people and a pilot. A 747 sized plane 25 people? That is as big payloads will be for space,for a reasonable price $150/kg. -- "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 Apr 20 10:04:17 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["9433" "Wednesday" "19" "April" "2000" "21:40:53" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "220" "starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 9433 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3K1feh11371 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:41:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3K1fd411365 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id z.9f.435d32f (3937) for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 21:40:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9f.435d32f.262fba25@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM 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: How to build a station. Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 21:40:53 EDT Ok, to try to be more constructive in this argument. How would you get a small craft into space? Well one option is hobbeist. Their are folks building and flying homemade ejector ramjets. The digging I attached seemed fairly comfortable with Ramjets/scramjets getting up to, maybe above mach 6. With a bit of work getting a ejector ram or pulse get to funding as a rocket in hard vac is doable, so the engine weight penalty wouldn't be high. The bad nest is between there and the surface is hypersonic flight. Slight problems at that speed get nasty. You have a aerodynamics problem at 400 mph, you can probably nurse your homebuilt plane home. At mach-3 you and ship will look like you were run through a chiper-shredder. Also you need to make the hull out of high temp materials, especially for reentry. But the exotic material used back when are now on the hobbest market. Pricy, but there. (Not to mention new stuff like graphite composites that the 50's aerospace engineers would have sold organs to get.) Get a hold of a good aerospace scrounger and you can find left overs at surprising prices. I've seen folks walk off with flight worthy titan engines and $.05 a pound scrap value. How do you make a areo shape that can keep going in a straight line at those speeds? Steal! No blushing around. Order copies of hull info from a SR-71 or X-15 - or go talk to Burt Rutan who doing such work for Orbital Sciences. Find a hull shape that flew at those speeds and didn't try to fly sidewise. Reentry? Large wing and flat bottom and belly flop in. Need some good high temp bottom stuff. If this is to much, piggyback on another group trying to build something like it. What about a space station? Well you can't ship it up in a craft able to carry 1/2 ton loads. You need more then that to build a garage. Besides the economies of scale are terrible at that scale. Say 5 tons and the volume of a UPS truck. To make it simple build and check most of it out down here, and disassemble it for up ship and assembly. REAL embarrassing to ship it up and find things don't fit. For the outer shell a inflatable bag with a doc port is good. Take it out, pump it out, and do the rest of your work in full air pressure. Spray a good amount of reinforced concrete in the inside for structure, shielding, and thermal mass. Now you can bring up and outfit it pretty much like a normal building. Air processors can be adapted from marine and scuba recycling systems. need to keep brining up liquid ox to replenish, but that's not to hard. You can get most of your water recycling by condensing it out of the air. Pump filtered brown water out into reaction jets. Use their evaporation into vacuum for attitude control thrust. Solid waste you need to bag and bring down. Power is a serious problem. Batteries and stuff are not good to have in a life-support area, and solar power systems need to be outside and maintained. Ship it up in prefab modules to socketed into dock points on the outside of the docking module? How much would all this cost? Could be all over the map. Hobbest projects or ones done by small skilled teams can cost less then a hundredth of a industrial one. Industrial firms have estinated it would take them about $4-6 billion to build NASA $30-80 billion dollar station. So you possibly into the tens of millions in cost. Launch costs are a big factor. But if you have a decent launcher you can drop up costs so much you can save a lot of launching, and station design. Another big cost is all the exotic junk on the station there to show off NASA's ability to make exotic junk (no I'm not kidding, I was on the program). If you just want some living space figure a few thousand a person for air and water processors. $10-$30,000? NOrmal inflatable tables and charrs (everything non flamible!!). Bifg cost is just launching it up. You probably looking a few tons per person. Now thats great compared to station, which is about 80 tons per person? For 70 people, assuming 8 tons per person (just a guess) thats 540 tons. At least a hundred flights of your 5 ton lifter. As a rought guess thats $1-3 million dollars worth of fuel. So you built your launcher for a extreamly cheap cost ($20-$40 million?), and can get folks to service it for free. You MIGHT be able to to get the stuff up there for $100 + a pound. If you can keep that up, you could get funding to turn your platform into a hotel, and actually pay your staffs. Ok, 100 flights for free servicing is rediculas, and a few industrial bargins for design and construction work and your $100 a pound jumps to $500 a pound real quick! Also the station construction and design costswern't covered, and its unlikly you can get this many REALLY helpfull friends willing to put in all this time for free. Course if your looking ar a hotel complex, a firm might be willing to drop a couple $billion to do it a bit larger and much less scroungee. =================== Subject: urls > > >Adjusting the Shroud to act as a Ramjet, and mounting the "Ejectors" as >a combustion ring inside might work. Though, again, reentry becomes a bit >of a problem. But the shape would give "body-side" compression for the >jet and allow a vertical take off and landing also. >(BTW, if you folks haven't checked out this site yet, you might want to >take a look: >http://www.ptw.com/~oglenn/trimode/3m-arla.htm >Check out the "Back-Page" section, he's done and quoted some research through >the old NACA records on Ramjets and fuel) Two gross estimating methods of thrust for ramjet were found. The first is 20 lbf/sq in combustion chamber cross section. The second is 90 lbf/sq in inlet area (ref Jaumotte). The first is probably conservative for a lean burning engine and the second is more of a maximum. For comparison, liquid oxygen/kerosene rockets typically get only 350 seconds of Isp. A ramjet typically gets 1,200-1,800 seconds, though theory says they can get 2,400 seconds. For this reason the ramjet gets 4-5 times as much thrust per pound of fuel. For amateur rocketeers the cost of the fuel is small but this higher Isp means that the stage can be 8-10 times smaller. The traditional jet engine fuel is kerosene. Other fuels that have been used are diesel, alcohol, propane, butane, and hydrogen. Each fuel has it's benefits and drawbacks. For example, alcohol has a lower energy density but, because of this, the engine will run a little cooler. Ramjets can operate on a wide range of fuels including solid plastics, liquid hydrocarbons, and hydrogen. The solid fueled ramjets were not researched for this study. The German Lippisch P13a experimental fighter used coal as its fuel. Each fuel has certain characteristics that may be preferable, depending on the particular design of the ramjet. Kerosene is the traditional ramjet fuel. It is widely available for about $0.45/lb in bulk and is much safer than gasoline. Diesel fuel is very similar to kerosene. Gasoline is slightly less dense than kerosene and has about the same density Isp. It is easier to ignite but can be very explosive. Alcohol has a lower density Isp and a lower flame temperature. For this reason it would be useful if lowering the flame temperature were needed. Hydrogen provides almost twice the Isp of kerosene but is about a fourth as dense. Because of this the fuel tank will be about twice as large for hydrogen as for kerosene but the fuel will weigh less. The flame temperature for stoichiometric hydrogen operation will be much higher than for kerosene and so will cause problems with combustion chamber and nozzle design. Hydrogen is considered by some, but not all, to be essential above Mach 7. Fuel/Air Mixture Ratio Ramjets operate most efficiently with a stoichiometric fuel/air ratio (about 1/17) but for a variety of reasons have been operated otherwise. To limit velocity, pressures, and temperatures they are often operated very lean. They can also be operated very rich, especially for very high velocity operations. An excess of fuel allows for full combustion of the available air plus some cooling and increased mass flow. This has the benefit of reducing thermal stresses in the hot section of the engine but requires more fuel. This cooling can also be achieved by water or alcohol injection as is done in the Mig 25 and the older B-52s. When hydrocarbon fuels, such as kerosene, are used above about Mach 5 the exhaust temperature is high enough to begin dissociating some of the exhaust products. While this reduces the Isp it does not become a major factor until about Mach 7. Because the CO2 dissociates easier than the H2O the net effect of operating very fuel rich at high speeds is that the ramjet begins to act like the fuel is hydrogen with some excess carbon thrown in. An interesting effect is that the very hot carbon particles would probably burn after they exit the exhaust nozzle and cause a comet-like tail of flame behind the vehicle. I especialy like the amature ramjet projects. Literally garage built from scrap. (A coffe can for the flame holder??!) http://www.ptw.com/~oglenn/trimode/rj-const.htm http://home3.inet.tele.dk/kennethm/index.htm http://pfranc.com/projects/turbine/top.htm http://www.webcreations.com/ptm/me2.htm Scott Lowther home ejector ramjet maker. From VM Thu Apr 20 10:04:17 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1275" "Wednesday" "19" "April" "2000" "21:41:13" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "37" "Re: starship-design: Inter-planetary craft" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1275 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3K1gL911533 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:42:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3K1gJ411526 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:42:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.3a.405562e (3937); Wed, 19 Apr 2000 21:41:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3a.405562e.262fba39@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: Inter-planetary craft Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 21:41:13 EDT In a message dated 4/19/00 6:06:54 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> >5 people ( manned craft )-- 500 kg 1 launch >> >1,500 kg ( unmanned ) cargo/bulk fuel. 3 launches >> >> 5 people weigh more then 500 kg. Besides thats to small, you couldn't >carry >> anything interesting up. Unless of course you just want do do a tourist >hop >> and come back down. >> > I am sure 5 people a day would love to get into space >for a $10,000 if it was based on the cost of fuel not >the price of custom designer rockets,for every launch. True, if you could do it. One wit commented: "How much would your ticket to England cost it 747's only flew twice a year, and Boeing only sold 4 after developing them?" >> The bigger platform can use more eficent launcher systems, and has far >more >> space to market. a 75 person platform couldn't keep a effoicent fleet >> operating. Unless it was a hotel that cycled folks down after a week >or two? >> > >A medium plane has say 75 passengers as a guess. The same size >space/plane >would carry 6 people and a pilot. A 747 sized plane 25 people? That is >as big payloads will be for space,for a reasonable price $150/kg. Ah a current large launcher carries 10-20 tons of payload. Thats 40-80people? From VM Thu Apr 20 10:04:17 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1711" "Wednesday" "19" "April" "2000" "20:42:53" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "47" "RE: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1711 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3K1lmW12782 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:47:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3K1lk412777 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:47:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p453.gnt.com [204.49.91.69]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id UAA22810; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 20:47:33 -0500 Message-ID: <001601bfaa6a$4ee9e570$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: , Subject: RE: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 20:42:53 -0500 > > Has anybody even considered it? Living areas require volume > > construction, and that type of construction has to be done some > > time in space. You get me into space and I will prove that one man > > could do it. Yep, considering it right now.... > > Unless your building something huge its a wast of time. Nope, you can prefab small too. > Easier to prefab it > in major parts, and launch and dock the parts. Far easier. Nope, mine it, smelt it and manufacture it in space, the only launch costs art for initial equipment boost, personnel rotation and consumables. Boosting prefab housing or anything else is just perpetuating the problem. We NEED the industry in orbit, not on the ground. > > If you want something office building sized you could inflate > a structure > that size, or larger and asemble it in it. Harder though. If you want something office building size, you tow a convenient asteroid into position and hollow it out. > >The earth sucks... no law of gravity. You are right there. > The system as > >I see > >it does not provide a system that would let small companies develop > >space transportation. I build a personal space/plane but can't get a > >permit > >to test or fly it. > > Sure you can. Several groups are doing so now. FAA is > working to adapt > their rules for comercial space plane dev now. They are working on the RULES just as Kelly says. Right now, at this very moment, you can launch your space plane. You cannot return it to American air space however. Now if you launched it from here and landed it somewhere else....well anyway, they are working on changing the rules so that entities besides NASA can return a spacecraft to American soil. Lee From VM Thu Apr 20 10:04:17 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7244" "Wednesday" "19" "April" "2000" "23:12:02" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "313" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7244 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3K3Ea407719 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 20:14:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3K3EY407712 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 20:14:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.96.135]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000420031424.TIME9725.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 03:14:24 +0000 Message-ID: <38FE7582.4040405@worldnet.att.net> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; N; Win98; en-US; m14) Netscape6/6.0b1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <001601bfaa6a$4ee9e570$0401a8c0@broadsword> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070707040605070808040908" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" , starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:12:02 -0400 --------------070707040605070808040908 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =A0=A0 L. Parker wrote: > = > > > Has anybody even considered it? Living areas require volume > > > construction, and that type of construction has to be done some > > > time in space. You get me into space and I will prove that one man= > > > could do it. > = > Yep, considering it right now.... > = > > > > Unless your building something huge its a wast of time. > = > Nope, you can prefab small too. > = > > Easier to prefab it > > in major parts, and launch and dock the parts. Far easier. > = > Nope, mine it, smelt it and manufacture it in space, the only launch co= sts > art for initial equipment boost, personnel rotation and consumables. > Boosting prefab housing or anything else is just perpetuating the probl= em. > We NEED the industry in orbit, not on the ground. Thank you, Lee, I was going to mention this and you beat me to it. Once = you get enough stuff up to make one, you can build an automated factory = for your structural steel shapes. Power it with solar, feed asteroid = iron in, and it could extrude your choice of structural section to = indefinite length. Weld the stuff up to any size you like. You could = even roll it into curves for making cylinders and such. Welding should be easy; I used to do it for a living, and the biggest = problem (down here) is keeping the oxygen away from the weld puddle. = However, I don't know how a weld puddle would behave in zero gee; that = may not be too bad either, though, since I learned to weld overhead. Once you've gotten to this point, you'll also have access to cometary = ice for water, hence oxy and hydrogen for breathing and fuel. All the materials we need are out there, including C, N, S, etc for = plastics and such, plus free power; the tough part will be getting out = there to get at them. I see the hardest thing at that point being food. = I don't know if gardening would work in zero gee, but what the hell, you = could grow some _very_ tall beanstalks on Luna. :-)=A0 And, of course you= = could spin a cylinder . . . > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > > > = > > If you want something office building sized you could inflate > = > > a structure > = > > that size, or larger and asemble it in it. Harder though. > = > = > = > If you want something office building size, you tow a convenient astero= id > = > into position and hollow it out. Throw an engine on it and you've got another ship. > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > > >The earth sucks... no law of gravity. You are right there. > = > > The system as > = > > >I see > = > > >it does not provide a system that would let small companies develop > = > > >space transportation. I build a personal space/plane but can't get a= > = > > >permit > = > > >to test or fly it. > = > > > = > > Sure you can. Several groups are doing so now. FAA is > = > > working to adapt > = > > their rules for comercial space plane dev now. > = > = > = > They are working on the RULES just as Kelly says. Right now, at this ve= ry > = > moment, you can launch your space plane. You cannot return it to Americ= an > = > air space however. Now if you launched it from here and landed it somew= here > = > else....well anyway, they are working on changing the rules so that ent= ities > = > besides NASA can return a spacecraft to American soil. > = > = > = > = > = --------------070707040605070808040908 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit    L. Parker wrote:
> >  Has anybody even considered it? Living areas require volume
> >  construction, and that type of construction has to be done some
> >  time in space. You get me into space and I will prove that one man
> >  could do it.

Yep, considering it right now....

>
> Unless your building something huge its a wast of time.

Nope, you can prefab small too.

> Easier to prefab it
> in major parts, and launch and dock the parts.  Far easier.

Nope, mine it, smelt it and manufacture it in space, the only launch costs
art for initial equipment boost, personnel rotation and consumables.
Boosting prefab housing or anything else is just perpetuating the problem.
We NEED the industry in orbit, not on the ground.

Thank you, Lee, I was going to mention this and you beat me to it. Once you get enough stuff up to make one, you can build an automated factory for your structural steel shapes. Power it with solar, feed asteroid iron in, and it could extrude your choice of structural section to indefinite length. Weld the stuff up to any size you like. You could even roll it into curves for making cylinders and such.
Welding should be easy; I used to do it for a living, and the biggest problem (down here) is keeping the oxygen away from the weld puddle. However, I don't know how a weld puddle would behave in zero gee; that may not be too bad either, though, since I learned to weld overhead.
Once you've gotten to this point, you'll also have access to cometary ice for water, hence oxy and hydrogen for breathing and fuel.
All the materials we need are out there, including C, N, S, etc for plastics and such, plus free power; the tough part will be getting out there to get at them. I see the hardest thing at that point being food. I don't know if gardening would work in zero gee, but what the hell, you could grow some _very_ tall beanstalks on Luna. :-)  And, of course you could spin a cylinder . . .










>

> If you want something office building sized you could inflate

> a structure

> that size, or larger and asemble it in it.  Harder though.



If you want something office building size, you tow a convenient asteroid

into position and hollow it out.

Throw an engine on it and you've got another ship.










> >The earth sucks... no law of gravity. You are right there.

> The system as

> >I see

> >it does not provide a system that would let small companies develop

> >space transportation. I build a personal space/plane but can't get a

> >permit

> >to test or fly it.

>

> Sure you can.  Several groups are doing so now.  FAA is

> working to adapt

> their rules for comercial space plane dev now.



They are working on the RULES just as Kelly says. Right now, at this very

moment, you can launch your space plane. You cannot return it to American

air space however. Now if you launched it from here and landed it somewhere

else....well anyway, they are working on changing the rules so that entities

besides NASA can return a spacecraft to American soil.

--------------070707040605070808040908-- From VM Thu Apr 20 10:04:17 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1848" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "00:18:53" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "38" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1848 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3K6DJZ21069 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:13:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3K6DH421064 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:13:18 -0700 (PDT) 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 AAA12126 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:13:05 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FEA14D.D572E3BF@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: <001601bfaa6a$4ee9e570$0401a8c0@broadsword> <38FE7582.4040405@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-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:18:53 -0600 Curtis Manges wrote: > Thank you, Lee, I was going to mention this and you beat me to it. > Once you get enough stuff up to make one, you can build an automated > factory for your structural steel shapes. Power it with solar, feed > asteroid iron in, and it could extrude your choice of structural > section to indefinite length. Weld the stuff up to any size you like. > You could even roll it into curves for making cylinders and such. > Welding should be easy; I used to do it for a living, and the biggest > problem (down here) is keeping the oxygen away from the weld puddle. > However, I don't know how a weld puddle would behave in zero gee; that > may not be too bad either, though, since I learned to weld overhead. I would think that anything that melts has to have the requirement of low vapor pressure since you don't want the melted section being jet propelled across the room. In zero G a lot of things that don't mix together on earth could be made to mix in space. > Once you've gotten to this point, you'll also have access to cometary > ice for water, hence oxy and hydrogen for breathing and fuel. > All the materials we need are out there, including C, N, S, etc for > plastics and such, plus free power; the tough part will be getting out > there to get at them. I see the hardest thing at that point being > food. I don't know if gardening would work in zero gee, but what the > hell, you could grow some _very_ tall beanstalks on Luna. :-) And, of > course you could spin a cylinder . . . With genetic engineering, could one make your beanstalks space hardy ( bio-plastic outer skin ) and grow a dome for habit on the moon? -- "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 Apr 20 10:04:17 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6467" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "01:51:15" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "160" "Re: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6467 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3K7jWN24234 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:45:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3K7jU424048 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:45:30 -0700 (PDT) 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 BAA16293 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 01:45:26 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FEB6F3.2235364F@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: <9f.435d32f.262fba25@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: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 01:51:15 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > Ok, to try to be more constructive in this argument. > > How would you get a small craft into space? > > Well one option is hobbeist. Their are folks building and flying homemade > ejector ramjets. The digging I attached seemed fairly comfortable with > Ramjets/scramjets getting up to, maybe above mach 6. With a bit of work > getting a ejector ram or pulse get to funding as a rocket in hard vac is > doable, > so the engine weight penalty wouldn't be high. A ram jet needs a rail launch,to get up to speed. That saves a few kg of fuel. > The bad nest is between there and the surface is hypersonic flight. Slight > problems at that speed get nasty. You have a aerodynamics problem at 400 mph, > you can probably nurse your homebuilt plane home. At mach-3 you and ship will > look like you were run through a chiper-shredder. Also you need to make the > hull out of high temp materials, especially for reentry. How about a fractal wing? triangular pattern -- smallest shapes hypersonic, middle pattern sonic, outer pattern sub-sonic. But the exotic > material used back when are now on the hobbest market. Pricy, but there. > (Not > to mention new stuff like graphite composites that the 50's aerospace > engineers > would have sold organs to get.) Get a hold of a good aerospace scrounger and > you can find left overs at surprising prices. I've seen folks walk off with > flight worthy titan engines and $.05 a pound scrap value. Don't forget heat pipes,or open vapor cooling. > > How do you make a areo shape that can keep going in a straight line at those > speeds? Steal! No blushing around. Order copies of hull info from a SR-71 > or > X-15 - or go talk to Burt Rutan who doing such work for Orbital Sciences. > Find > a hull shape that flew at those speeds and didn't try to fly sidewise. > Reentry? > Large wing and flat bottom and belly flop in. Need some good high temp bottom > stuff. A lifting body is harder to design, but may not have any advantages anymore over the simple design with better materials. > If this is to much, piggyback on another group trying to build something like > it. > > What about a space station? > Well you can't ship it up in a craft able to carry 1/2 ton loads. You need > more > then that to build a garage. Besides the economies of scale are terrible at > that scale. Say 5 tons and the volume of a UPS truck. With a 40:1 mass/payload ratio 5 tons is a 200 ton space/craft, a bit large for a first time design. How about 2.5 tons... 100 ton space-craft. To make it simple > build > and check most of it out down here, and disassemble it for up ship and > assembly. > REAL embarrassing to ship it up and find things don't fit. > yea for prefab. > > For the outer shell a inflatable bag with a doc port is good. Take it out, > pump > it out, and do the rest of your work in full air pressure. Spray a good > amount > of reinforced concrete in the inside for structure, shielding, and thermal > mass. A side trip to the moon for concrete? way to heavy for lift from the earth. > Now you can bring up and outfit it pretty much like a normal building. Air > processors can be adapted from marine and scuba recycling systems. need to > keep > brining up liquid ox to replenish, but that's not to hard. You can get most > of > your water recycling by condensing it out of the air. Pump filtered brown > water > out into reaction jets. Use their evaporation into vacuum for attitude > control > thrust. Solid waste you need to bag and bring down. > > Power is a serious problem. Batteries and stuff are not good to have in a > life-support area, and solar power systems need to be outside and maintained. > Ship it up in prefab modules to socketed into dock points on the outside of > the > docking module? Solar panels are too expensive I guess. A small solar generator may be better. here the limiting factor is not weight but bulk. > > How much would all this cost? > Could be all over the map. Hobbest projects or ones done by small skilled > teams > can cost less then a hundredth of a industrial one. Industrial firms have > estinated it would take them about $4-6 billion to build NASA $30-80 billion > dollar station. So you possibly into the tens of millions in cost. Launch > costs are a big factor. But if you have a decent launcher you can drop up > costs so much you can save a lot of launching, and station design. Another > big > cost is all the exotic junk on the station there to show off NASA's ability to > make exotic junk (no I'm not kidding, I was on the program). If you just want > some living space figure a few thousand a person for air and water processors. > $10-$30,000? NOrmal inflatable tables and charrs (everything non flamible!!). > Bifg cost is just launching it up. You probably looking a few tons per > person. > Now thats great compared to station, which is about 80 tons per person? > > For 70 people, assuming 8 tons per person (just a guess) thats 540 tons. At > least a hundred flights of your 5 ton lifter. As a rought guess thats $1-3 > million dollars worth of fuel. @ $.25 /lb fuel x 40:1 x 2,000 x 540 = 10.8 million So you built your launcher for a extremely > cheap > cost ($20-$40 million?), and can get folks to service it for free. You MIGHT > be able to to get the stuff up there for $100 + a pound. If you can keep that > up, you could get funding to turn your platform into a hotel, and actually pay > your staffs. > > Ok, 100 flights for free servicing is rediculas, and a few industrial bargins > for design and construction work and your $100 a pound jumps to $500 a pound > real quick! Also the station construction and design costswern't covered, and > its unlikly you can get this many REALLY helpfull friends willing to put in > all > this time for free. Course if your looking ar a hotel complex, a firm might > be > willing to drop a couple $billion to do it a bit larger and much less > scroungee. Note with $.25/lb fuel cost and 40:1 ratio that is $10 lb or 20k per ton. > > For comparison, liquid oxygen/kerosene rockets typically > get only 350 seconds of Isp. A ramjet typically gets 1,200-1,800 seconds, >. That will drop the mass ratio down abit. -- "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 Apr 20 10:04:17 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["984" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "10:08:45" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "21" "Re: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 984 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3KG2xP12243 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:02:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3KG2w412236 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:02:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin60.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.60]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA22778 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:02:56 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FF2B8D.CAF421D5@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: <9f.435d32f.262fba25@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: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:08:45 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > Ok, to try to be more constructive in this argument. > > How would you get a small craft into space? > > Well one option is hobbeist. Their are folks building and flying homemade > ejector ramjets. The digging I attached seemed fairly comfortable with > Ramjets/scramjets getting up to, maybe above mach 6. With a bit of work > getting a ejector ram or pulse get to funding as a rocket in hard vac is > doable, > so the engine weight penalty wouldn't be high. The real catch is not saving fuel ( that helps ) is that the ram jet must be very light as it is dead weight after the air runs out and must be the same weight or less as the weight saved in the airframe from the lighter fuel load. This starting to look like a TSTO design. Since one at this time can't land back in US air space, how about ocean based space/port ... save on landing gear and runways, and you get a neat launch.... rockets ignite until the ramjet kicks in, and off you go. From VM Thu Apr 20 10:40:31 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1147" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "13:24:36" "-0400" "pk" "thida@videotron.ca" nil "22" "Re: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1147 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3KHWjb29138 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3KHWiR29125 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:32:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from falla.videotron.net (falla.videotron.net [205.151.222.106]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3KHVI428245 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:31:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from videotron.ca ([24.200.154.246]) by falla.videotron.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.12.14.10.29.p8) with ESMTP id <0FTB0027WSD59D@falla.videotron.net> for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:24:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: "pk" (Unverified) Message-id: <38FF3D54.2207BAEF@videotron.ca> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en]C-NECCK (Win95; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <9f.435d32f.262fba25@aol.com> <38FF2B8D.CAF421D5@jetnet.ab.ca> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: pk From: pk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Ben Franchuk Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:24:36 -0400 Ben Franchuk wrote: > The real catch is not saving fuel ( that helps ) is that the ram jet > must be very light as it is dead weight after the air runs out > and must be the same weight or less as the weight saved in the airframe > from the lighter fuel load. This starting to look like a TSTO design. > Since one at this time can't land back in US air space, how about > ocean based space/port ... save on landing gear and runways, and you > get a neat launch.... rockets ignite until the ramjet kicks in, > and off you go. Well, for the rocket/ramjet, there's a french missile that does just what you want, and it's cheap(not like a million-dollar-a-piece-tomahawk 8) Basically, it just stuffs a monergol in the ramjet, and when the monergol is all used, it gets rapidly into ramjet mode... And, couldn't you just use the same part for ramjet&space rocket? Like when you reenter rocket mode, just use claps to block the air entrance, and then injects Fuel&O2 instead of just putting Fuel? Just a thought -- AKA paul_virak_khuong at yahoo.com, pkhuong at deja.com, pkhuong at crosswinds.net and pkhuong at technologist.com(list not complete)... From VM Thu Apr 20 10:47:16 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1252" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "10:42:51" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "29" "Re: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1252 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3KHguc03847 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:42:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jason02.u.washington.edu (root@jason02.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3KHgt403837 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:42:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dante17.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante17.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.67]) by jason02.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW00.01) with ESMTP id KAA20524 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:42:53 -0700 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante17.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id KAA29400 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:42:51 -0700 In-Reply-To: <38FF3D54.2207BAEF@videotron.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: starship design Subject: Re: starship-design: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:42:51 -0700 (PDT) What's a monergol? Nels On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, pk wrote: > Ben Franchuk wrote: > > The real catch is not saving fuel ( that helps ) is that the ram jet > > must be very light as it is dead weight after the air runs out > > and must be the same weight or less as the weight saved in the airframe > > from the lighter fuel load. This starting to look like a TSTO design. > > Since one at this time can't land back in US air space, how about > > ocean based space/port ... save on landing gear and runways, and you > > get a neat launch.... rockets ignite until the ramjet kicks in, > > and off you go. > Well, for the rocket/ramjet, there's a french missile that does just > what you want, and it's cheap(not like a million-dollar-a-piece-tomahawk > 8) > Basically, it just stuffs a monergol in the ramjet, and when the > monergol is all used, it gets rapidly into ramjet mode... > And, couldn't you just use the same part for ramjet&space rocket? Like > when you reenter rocket mode, just use claps to block the air entrance, > and then injects Fuel&O2 instead of just putting Fuel? > > Just a thought > -- > AKA paul_virak_khuong at yahoo.com, pkhuong at deja.com, pkhuong at > crosswinds.net and pkhuong at technologist.com(list not complete)... > From VM Thu Apr 20 11:24:18 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["374" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "14:04:21" "-0400" "pk" "thida@videotron.ca" nil "9" "Re: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 374 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3KILDD26911 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 11:21:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3KILCF26899 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 11:21:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from falla.videotron.net (falla.videotron.net [205.151.222.106]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3KIK1426281 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 11:20:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from videotron.ca ([24.200.154.246]) by falla.videotron.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.12.14.10.29.p8) with ESMTP id <0FTB006CJU7F05@falla.videotron.net> for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:04:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: "pk" (Unverified) Message-id: <38FF46A5.2A75F1AE@videotron.ca> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en]C-NECCK (Win95; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: pk From: pk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "N. Lindberg" Cc: starship design Subject: Re: starship-design: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:04:21 -0400 N. Lindberg wrote: > > What's a monergol? Well, i don't know if the word exists in English, but in French, it's a propellant that burn by itself(no need for an external source of O2, etc)... Hydrazine would be an example, i think... -- AKA paul_virak_khuong at yahoo.com, pkhuong at deja.com, pkhuong at crosswinds.net and pkhuong at technologist.com(list not complete)... From VM Thu Apr 20 16:08:37 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["717" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "17:25:00" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "19" "RE: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 717 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3KMQbJ05903 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:26:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3KMQZ405896 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:26:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p435.gnt.com [204.49.91.51]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA08091; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 17:26:21 -0500 Message-ID: <002401bfab17$5f0e3f70$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: <38FF46A5.2A75F1AE@videotron.ca> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'pk'" , "'N. Lindberg'" Cc: "'starship design'" Subject: RE: starship-design: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 17:25:00 -0500 > N. Lindberg wrote: > > > > What's a monergol? > Well, i don't know if the word exists in English, but in > French, it's a > propellant that burn by itself(no need for an external source of O2, > etc)... Hydrazine would be an example, i think... > -- Ahh, he does mean monopropellant, of which Hydrazine is NOT an example. All monopropellants are solids and almost have to be by definition, and therefore are not suitable for scramjets, ramjets, etc. If, on the other hand, you are referring to hypergolic propellants (say explosives), I would advise against them. They are volatile and tricky to handle. The Federal government doesn't even allow transport of the components within fifty miles of each other. Lee From VM Thu Apr 20 16:08:37 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["72" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "17:20:12" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "9" "RE: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 72 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3KMQP905851 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:26:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3KMQO405844 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:26:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p435.gnt.com [204.49.91.51]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA08076; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 17:26:19 -0500 Message-ID: <002301bfab17$5db20ad0$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'" , "'starship design'" Subject: RE: starship-design: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 17:20:12 -0500 > > What's a monergol? > Nels > Maybe he means monopropellant? Lee From VM Thu Apr 20 16:08:37 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2684" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "18:48:14" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "73" "Re: RE: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2684 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3KMmSP18027 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:48:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3KMmR418020 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:48:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 4.97.458c799 (3315); Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:48:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <97.458c799.2630e32e@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, KellySt@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:48:14 EDT In a message dated 4/19/00 8:48:13 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> > Has anybody even considered it? Living areas require volume >> > construction, and that type of construction has to be done some >> > time in space. You get me into space and I will prove that one man >> > could do it. > >Yep, considering it right now.... > >> >> Unless your building something huge its a wast of time. > >Nope, you can prefab small too. Can doesn't mean its a good idea. >> Easier to prefab it >> in major parts, and launch and dock the parts. Far easier. > >Nope, mine it, smelt it and manufacture it in space, the only launch costs >art for initial equipment boost, personnel rotation and consumables. >Boosting prefab housing or anything else is just perpetuating the problem. >We NEED the industry in orbit, not on the ground. Chose the best system for the project not the project to promote your agenda. Dson't think like a advocate. You couldn't possible mine, smelt, and manufacture most of what you'ld need - certainly not for less launch mass then a reasonably sized station. Why do we NEED industry in orbit? If the answer is you feel industry in orbit is important, go to jail, do not collect $200. You need to bepractical and profitable. Launching the material from earth for initial projects would be far more cost effective and safe. Most you couldn't make in space anyway. At least you exercise the launcher and save some serious bucks. >> If you want something office building sized you could inflate >> a structure >> that size, or larger and asemble it in it. Harder though. > >If you want something office building size, you tow a convenient asteroid >into position and hollow it out. Asteroids an't thought to be solid. Best bet is sticky ruble piles. >> >The earth sucks... no law of gravity. You are right there. >> The system as >> >I see >> >it does not provide a system that would let small companies develop >> >space transportation. I build a personal space/plane but can't get a >> >permit >> >to test or fly it. >> >> Sure you can. Several groups are doing so now. FAA is >> working to adapt >> their rules for comercial space plane dev now. > >They are working on the RULES just as Kelly says. Right now, at this very >moment, you can launch your space plane. You cannot return it to American >air space however. Now if you launched it from here and landed it somewhere >else....well anyway, they are working on changing the rules so that entities >besides NASA can return a spacecraft to American soil. I though congress changed that law last year? Oh, folks are also working on the space planes themselves. >Lee Kelly From VM Thu Apr 20 16:08:37 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2790" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "18:48:17" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "64" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2790 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3KMmT818039 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3KMmS418028 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 15:48:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.c1.2793c9a (3315) for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:48:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id e3KMmT418030 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: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:48:17 EDT In a message dated 4/19/00 10:15:37 PM, clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: >   L. Parker wrote: >> >> > > Has anybody even considered it? Living areas require volume >> > > construction, and that type of construction has to be done some >> > > time in space. You get me into space and I will prove that one man >> > > could do it. >> >> Yep, considering it right now.... >> >> > >> > Unless your building something huge its a wast of time. >> >> Nope, you can prefab small too. >> >> > Easier to prefab it >> > in major parts, and launch and dock the parts. Far easier. >> >> Nope, mine it, smelt it and manufacture it in space, the only launch >costs >> art for initial equipment boost, personnel rotation and consumables. >> Boosting prefab housing or anything else is just perpetuating the problem. >> We NEED the industry in orbit, not on the ground. > >Thank you, Lee, I was going to mention this and you beat me to it. Once > >you get enough stuff up to make one, you can build an automated factory > >for your structural steel shapes. Power it with solar, feed asteroid >iron in, and it could extrude your choice of structural section to >indefinite length. Weld the stuff up to any size you like. You could >even roll it into curves for making cylinders and such. >Welding should be easy; I used to do it for a living, and the biggest >problem (down here) is keeping the oxygen away from the weld puddle. >However, I don't know how a weld puddle would behave in zero gee; that > >may not be too bad either, though, since I learned to weld overhead. >Once you've gotten to this point, you'll also have access to cometary >ice for water, hence oxy and hydrogen for breathing and fuel. >All the materials we need are out there, including C, N, S, etc for >plastics and such, plus free power; the tough part will be getting out > >there to get at them. I see the hardest thing at that point being food. > >I don't know if gardening would work in zero gee, but what the hell, you > >could grow some _very_ tall beanstalks on Luna. :-)  And, of course you > >could spin a cylinder . . . So before you get a few tons of Ibeams and sheet metal, you first need to orbit and bild a full mining manufacturing, machining, etc factory? All to build your small space station. So how do you build the mining etc space statin? How do you outfit it? Where do you build and operate its support ships? After all this was all started by the questin how to build a 765 person station and you guys first responce is "launch Pitsburg?!" And in case you didn't notice. That mill can't make the bulk of the station and its fittings. And of course if fanomonaly more expensive - which will help to convince everyone the space is to expensive to be at all usefull. Kelly From VM Thu Apr 20 18:52:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1100" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "20:58:42" "-0400" "pk" "thida@videotron.ca" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1100 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3L102v11975 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from falla.videotron.net (falla.videotron.net [205.151.222.106]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3L101411903 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from videotron.ca ([24.200.154.246]) by falla.videotron.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.12.14.10.29.p8) with ESMTP id <0FTC00D92DDX5J@falla.videotron.net> for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:58:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: "pk" (Unverified) Message-id: <38FFA7C2.4EA89C6@videotron.ca> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en]C-NECCK (Win95; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <002401bfab17$5f0e3f70$0401a8c0@broadsword> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: pk From: pk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" Cc: "'N. Lindberg'" , "'starship design'" Subject: Re: starship-design: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:58:42 -0400 L. Parker wrote: > Ahh, he does mean monopropellant, of which Hydrazine is NOT an example. All > monopropellants are solids and almost have to be by definition, and > therefore are not suitable for scramjets, ramjets, etc. If, on the other > hand, you are referring to hypergolic propellants (say explosives), I would > advise against them. They are volatile and tricky to handle. The Federal > government doesn't even allow transport of the components within fifty miles > of each other. Alright... i didn't say that it was to be used in a XYZjet as a propellant; i said that a french missile is using solid rocket fuel to accelerate itself until it's fast enough to run in scramjet mode... Basically, it fills the scramjet with solid fuel, and when the fuel is all used up, claps open to let air get through, and scramjet mode starts... i don't know the name of the missile, but it must be from Matra, since every French missile come from them(or almost)... -- AKA paul_virak_khuong at yahoo.com, pkhuong at deja.com, pkhuong at crosswinds.net and pkhuong at technologist.com(list not complete)... From VM Thu Apr 20 18:52:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3482" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "20:27:16" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "83" "RE: RE: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3482 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3L1Tks20871 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:29:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3L1Tj420864 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p432.gnt.com [204.49.91.48]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id UAA05176; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:29:41 -0500 Message-ID: <002901bfab30$fb0916c0$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: <97.458c799.2630e32e@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: FTL travel Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:27:16 -0500 In a message dated Thursday, April 20, 2000 5:48 PM, KellySt@aol.com writes: > > In a message dated 4/19/00 8:48:13 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > > >> Unless your building something huge its a wast of time. > > > >Nope, you can prefab small too. > > Can doesn't mean its a good idea. > Huh? Why not? Or should I point out that you have your economies of scale reversed? It is easier, cheaper and more profitable to mass produce a small object than a large one. Who ever heard of mass producing the Titanic? > Chose the best system for the project not the project to > promote your agenda. > Dson't think like a advocate. You couldn't possible mine, > smelt, and > manufacture most of what you'ld need - certainly not for less > launch mass > then a reasonably sized station. Why do we NEED industry in > orbit? If the > answer is you feel industry in orbit is important, go to > jail, do not collect > $200. You need to bepractical and profitable. Launching the > material from > earth for initial projects would be far more cost effective > and safe. Most > you couldn't make in space anyway. At least you exercise the > launcher and > save some serious bucks. Whose promoting an agenda? Seriously, though; you might get away with building interplanetary probes in pieces and assembling them in orbit, but as long as it is done that way you are promoting large heavy lift, expensive to launch boosters. On the other hand a permanent manufacturing presence in orbit would require LOTS of small, efficient, cheap launches to maintain. Second, an interplanetary craft might max out at only a few hundred tons, hundreds of times smaller than an interstellar probe. Add up the launch cost of oh, say a 10,000 ton probe if every piece is lifted to orbit from Earth on Titans and Arianes. What fraction of the PLANETARY Gross Product is that? Third, what do you want to see, a repeat of Apollo? Okay lets spend ten trillion dollars to put a man on the third planet of Alpha Centauri and then go home and quit? Not me. I want to see a thriving orbital industry sending hundreds of ships out to mine asteroids, ferry goods to and from orbital installations, the moon and the planets. Research stations all over the solar system, inhabited stations all over the place. In short lots and LOTS of experienced orbital know how. Anything can be manufactured in space. Many things can be manufactured BETTER. I have a get out of jail card and I think space is the equivalent of Boardwalk and Park Place with hotels...very profitable. > Asteroids an't thought to be solid. Best bet is sticky ruble piles. Some are, some aren't. Depends on what they are made of. Some are thought to be rubble piles, some are thought to be solid. For mining purposes the rubble pile actually works better. The slag form the smelting operation can then be fused together to make large structures. The University of Minnesota has a good class on this. > > I though congress changed that law last year? The law has nothing to do with Congress, it is the FAA that has to change it. I could be wrong, but I don't think they have actually done so yet. It was one of the major reasons Kistler Aerospace took there project to Australia and it did have some influence on SeaLaunch as well. > > Oh, folks are also working on the space planes themselves. Lots and lots of folks are working on space planes! Mostly they are after the X-Prize. Some actually intend to make money at this. Lee From VM Thu Apr 20 18:52:23 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1312" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "20:32:26" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "29" "RE: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1312 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3L1YDI22004 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:34:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3L1YB421996 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:34:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p432.gnt.com [204.49.91.48]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id UAA05942; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:34:06 -0500 Message-ID: <002a01bfab31$9978ef10$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: <38FFA7C2.4EA89C6@videotron.ca> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'pk'" Cc: "'N. Lindberg'" , "'starship design'" Subject: RE: starship-design: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:32:26 -0500 > From: pk [mailto:thida@videotron.ca] > L. Parker wrote: > > Ahh, he does mean monopropellant, of which Hydrazine is NOT > an example. All > > monopropellants are solids and almost have to be by definition, and > > therefore are not suitable for scramjets, ramjets, etc. If, > on the other > > hand, you are referring to hypergolic propellants (say > explosives), I would > > advise against them. They are volatile and tricky to > handle. The Federal > > government doesn't even allow transport of the components > within fifty miles > > of each other. > Alright... i didn't say that it was to be used in a XYZjet as a > propellant; i said that a french missile is using solid rocket fuel to > accelerate itself until it's fast enough to run in scramjet mode... > Basically, it fills the scramjet with solid fuel, and when the fuel is > all used up, claps open to let air get through, and scramjet mode > starts... > i don't know the name of the missile, but it must be from Matra, since > every French missile come from them(or almost)... Never heard of it, but it sounds like a neat trick. I suppose that would solve the problem of getting a scramjet up to speed. Most current missiles (as opposed to rockets) use monopropellants. Typically a metal based polymer of some sort. Aluminum works real well. Lee From VM Thu Apr 20 18:57:00 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7443" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "21:49:54" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "233" "Re: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7443 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3L1o8u26333 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:50:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3L1o7426324 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.17.47e4e60 (8977) for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 21:49:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <17.47e4e60.26310dc2@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: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 21:49:54 EDT In a message dated 4/20/00 2:45:48 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> Ok, to try to be more constructive in this argument. >> >> How would you get a small craft into space? >> >> Well one option is hobbeist. Their are folks building and flying homemade >> ejector ramjets. The digging I attached seemed fairly comfortable with >> Ramjets/scramjets getting up to, maybe above mach 6. With a bit of >work >> getting a ejector ram or pulse get to funding as a rocket in hard vac >is >> doable, >> so the engine weight penalty wouldn't be high. > >A ram jet needs a rail launch,to get up to speed. >That saves a few kg of fuel. Ejector ramjets can run from a standing start. >> The bad nest is between there and the surface is hypersonic flight. >Slight >> problems at that speed get nasty. You have a aerodynamics problem at >400 mph, >> you can probably nurse your homebuilt plane home. At mach-3 you and >ship will >> look like you were run through a chiper-shredder. Also you need to make >the >> hull out of high temp materials, especially for reentry. > >How about a fractal wing? triangular pattern -- smallest shapes >hypersonic, middle pattern sonic, outer pattern sub-sonic. Not really since its harder to test and you want make lift drag for highest sppeds in rentry. > But the exotic >> material used back when are now on the hobbest market. Pricy, but there. >> (Not >> to mention new stuff like graphite composites that the 50's aerospace >> engineers >> would have sold organs to get.) Get a hold of a good aerospace scrounger >and >> you can find left overs at surprising prices. I've seen folks walk off >with >> flight worthy titan engines and $.05 a pound scrap value. > >Don't forget heat pipes,or open vapor cooling. Lots of stuff, even semirecyled life support is comercial area. >> How do you make a areo shape that can keep going in a straight line at >those >> speeds? Steal! No blushing around. Order copies of hull info from >a SR-71 >> or >> X-15 - or go talk to Burt Rutan who doing such work for Orbital Sciences. >> Find >> a hull shape that flew at those speeds and didn't try to fly sidewise. >> Reentry? >> Large wing and flat bottom and belly flop in. Need some good high temp >bottom >> stuff. > >A lifting body is harder to design, but may not have any advantages >anymore over the simple design with better materials. Lifting body isn't very high lift, nor very easy to get high drag on rentry. Also they fly teribly! >> If this is to much, piggyback on another group trying to build something >like >> it. >> >> What about a space station? >> Well you can't ship it up in a craft able to carry 1/2 ton loads. You >need >> more >> then that to build a garage. Besides the economies of scale are terrible >at >> that scale. Say 5 tons and the volume of a UPS truck. > >With a 40:1 mass/payload ratio 5 tons is a 200 ton space/craft, >a bit large for a first time design. How about 2.5 tons... 100 ton >space-craft. Why do you assume a 40 to 1 ratio? > To make it simple >> build >> and check most of it out down here, and disassemble it for up ship and >> assembly. >> REAL embarrassing to ship it up and find things don't fit. >> > >yea for prefab. Yeah and since you don't want to ship up a full constructin crew, so you'ld want to prefab as much as possible. >> For the outer shell a inflatable bag with a doc port is good. Take it >out, >> pump >> it out, and do the rest of your work in full air pressure. Spray a good >> amount >> of reinforced concrete in the inside for structure, shielding, and thermal >> mass. > >A side trip to the moon for concrete? way to heavy for lift from the >earth. Cheaper to ship it up from earth then to ship it back from the moon. >> Now you can bring up and outfit it pretty much like a normal building. > Air >> processors can be adapted from marine and scuba recycling systems. need >to >> keep >> brining up liquid ox to replenish, but that's not to hard. You can get >most >> of >> your water recycling by condensing it out of the air. Pump filtered >brown >> water >> out into reaction jets. Use their evaporation into vacuum for attitude >> control >> thrust. Solid waste you need to bag and bring down. >> >> Power is a serious problem. Batteries and stuff are not good to have >in a >> life-support area, and solar power systems need to be outside and maintained. >> Ship it up in prefab modules to socketed into dock points on the outside >of >> the >> docking module? > >Solar panels are too expensive I guess. A small solar generator may be >better. >here the limiting factor is not weight but bulk. Solar in general is expensive. The panels however are simpler and more relyable. >> How much would all this cost? >> Could be all over the map. Hobbest projects or ones done by small skilled >> teams >> can cost less then a hundredth of a industrial one. Industrial firms >have >> estinated it would take them about $4-6 billion to build NASA $30-80 >billion >> dollar station. So you possibly into the tens of millions in cost. >Launch >> costs are a big factor. But if you have a decent launcher you can drop >up >> costs so much you can save a lot of launching, and station design. Another >> big >> cost is all the exotic junk on the station there to show off NASA's ability >to >> make exotic junk (no I'm not kidding, I was on the program). If you >just want >> some living space figure a few thousand a person for air and water processors. >> $10-$30,000? NOrmal inflatable tables and charrs (everything non flamible!!). >> Bifg cost is just launching it up. You probably looking a few tons per >> person. >> Now thats great compared to station, which is about 80 tons per person? >> >> For 70 people, assuming 8 tons per person (just a guess) thats 540 tons. > At >> least a hundred flights of your 5 ton lifter. As a rought guess thats >$1-3 >> million dollars worth of fuel. > > @ $.25 /lb fuel x 40:1 x 2,000 x 540 = 10.8 million Why do you assume 40 to 1? The ratio varies a lot depending on the design and engine systems. > So you built your launcher for a extremely >> cheap >> cost ($20-$40 million?), and can get folks to service it for free. >You MIGHT >> be able to to get the stuff up there for $100 + a pound. If you can >keep that >> up, you could get funding to turn your platform into a hotel, and actually >pay >> your staffs. >> >> Ok, 100 flights for free servicing is rediculas, and a few industrial >bargins >> for design and construction work and your $100 a pound jumps to $500 >a pound >> real quick! Also the station construction and design costswern't covered, >and >> its unlikly you can get this many REALLY helpfull friends willing to >put in >> all >> this time for free. Course if your looking ar a hotel complex, a firm >might >> be >> willing to drop a couple $billion to do it a bit larger and much less >> scroungee. > >Note with $.25/lb fuel cost and 40:1 ratio that is $10 lb or >20k per ton. > >> >> For comparison, liquid oxygen/kerosene rockets typically >> get only 350 seconds of Isp. A ramjet typically gets 1,200-1,800 seconds, >>. > >That will drop the mass ratio down abit. A LOX/Kero rocket based SSTO would use 14:1 fuel/craft ratio. The air breather could cut that to 7-1 maybe less. Given Kerosine is far more dence, it needs a far smaller and lighter tank. Kelly From VM Thu Apr 20 18:57:00 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1576" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "21:49:56" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "39" "Re: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1576 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3L1o8M26328 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:50:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3L1o6426322 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.37.41713e0 (8977) for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 21:49:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37.41713e0.26310dc4@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: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 21:49:56 EDT In a message dated 4/20/00 11:12:26 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> Ok, to try to be more constructive in this argument. >> >> How would you get a small craft into space? >> >> Well one option is hobbeist. Their are folks building and flying homemade >> ejector ramjets. The digging I attached seemed fairly comfortable with >> Ramjets/scramjets getting up to, maybe above mach 6. With a bit of >work >> getting a ejector ram or pulse get to funding as a rocket in hard vac >is >> doable, >> so the engine weight penalty wouldn't be high. > >The real catch is not saving fuel ( that helps ) is that the ram jet >must be very light as it is dead weight after the air runs out >and must be the same weight or less as the weight saved in the airframe >from the lighter fuel load. This starting to look like a TSTO design. >Since one at this time can't land back in US air space, how about >ocean based space/port ... save on landing gear and runways, and you >get a neat launch.... rockets ignite until the ramjet kicks in, >and off you go. The ram jets can be modified to also act as rockets, so they don't need to be dead weight. Since they can save almost half the take-off weight, they do give a dramatic edge. Again, I think the law was changed so launchers can land in the US. But if not, and you can make something flyable after rentry, land in Mexico for lunch them hop hom. ;) Space Access' TSTO uses Ejector ramjets for the mother craft and rockets for the secound stage after the mother craft exits the air. Kelly From VM Fri Apr 21 09:57:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1220" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "20:55:04" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "35" "Re: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1220 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3L2nRT12899 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 19:49:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3L2nN412890 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 19:49:24 -0700 (PDT) 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 UAA24750 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:49:19 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <38FFC307.AB506CFD@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: <17.47e4e60.26310dc2@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: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:55:04 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 4/20/00 2:45:48 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: > >With a 40:1 mass/payload ratio 5 tons is a 200 ton space/craft, > >a bit large for a first time design. How about 2.5 tons... 100 ton > >space-craft. > > Why do you assume a 40 to 1 ratio? There is about a 20:1 mass ratio from the rocket equation for a ISP of 350. ( lox/ kerosene or lox/ch4 ). If you assume the mass of the craft empty is the same of the payload, that becomes a 40:1 ratio. > > Solar in general is expensive. The panels however are simpler and more > relyable. They have been claiming cheap solar panels, as long as the have been claiming cheap access into space. > A LOX/Kero rocket based SSTO would use 14:1 fuel/craft ratio. The air > breather could cut that to 7-1 maybe less. Given Kerosine is far more dence, > it needs a far smaller and lighter tank. I just think in the near future +25 years the price of oil/gas will skyrocket and CH4 will be cheaper than synthetic Kerosene. > 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 Fri Apr 21 09:57:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6151" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "23:18:38" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "149" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6151 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3L3In220300 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:18:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3L3Im420294 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:18:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.c4.2cd6c70 (4241) for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:18:39 -0400 (EDT) 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: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:18:38 EDT In a message dated 4/20/00 8:29:57 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >In a message dated Thursday, April 20, 2000 5:48 PM, KellySt@aol.com writes: >> >> In a message dated 4/19/00 8:48:13 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> >> >> Unless your building something huge its a wast of time. >> > >> >Nope, you can prefab small too. >> >> Can doesn't mean its a good idea. >> > >Huh? Why not? Or should I point out that you have your economies of scale >reversed? It is easier, cheaper and more profitable to mass produce a small >object than a large one. Who ever heard of mass producing the Titanic? Or biulding a titanic in segments to be assembled in the feild. Prefabing little segments of a statin to be assembled in orbit means lots more seams to leak. Besides its not like your likely to have a lot of things in the station that you'l have lots of copies of. So mass productin is a bit dificult. >> Chose the best system for the project not the project to >> promote your agenda. >> Dson't think like a advocate. You couldn't possible mine, >> smelt, and >> manufacture most of what you'ld need - certainly not for less >> launch mass >> then a reasonably sized station. Why do we NEED industry in >> orbit? If the >> answer is you feel industry in orbit is important, go to >> jail, do not collect >> $200. You need to bepractical and profitable. Launching the >> material from >> earth for initial projects would be far more cost effective >> and safe. Most >> you couldn't make in space anyway. At least you exercise the >> launcher and >> save some serious bucks. > >Whose promoting an agenda? > >Seriously, though; you might get away with building interplanetary probes >in >pieces and assembling them in orbit, but as long as it is done that way >you >are promoting large heavy lift, expensive to launch boosters. On the other >hand a permanent manufacturing presence in orbit would require LOTS of >small, efficient, cheap launches to maintain. No because the infastructure to build the probes and early stations is much larger and heavier then years worth of probes and statins would be. Expensive launch is much less of a problem since the bulk of the cost of a good reusable is building the craft and keeping up its facilities and such. So if you quadruple the launch rate the total cost goes up far far less. In some cases hardly at all. Just fuel and wear. With DC-x they found if you launched 3 times a week or three times a year you had to keep most of the same people on in similar pay rates. Spare parts and such ae a pretty low in comparison, and ofcourse the cost to develop and build the craft are divided over the total number of flights. >Second, an interplanetary craft might max out at only a few hundred tons, >hundreds of times smaller than an interstellar probe. Add up the launch >cost >of oh, say a 10,000 ton probe if every piece is lifted to orbit from Earth >on Titans and Arianes. What fraction of the PLANETARY Gross Product is >that? If your lifting 10,000 tons you can cut lift costs dramatically. Cut costs to 1/100th that of a titan or such and the total lift cost would be $2,000,000,000 About the cost of 1 year of shuttle launches (under 200 tons possible lift). Shows you how bad current launchers are. In theory the lift costs could be cut even another factor of ten or 100. Now obviously your not going to want to lift millions to hundreds of millions of tons for a big starship if you could get it cheaper in space. But you wouldn't want to life a thousand ton steel mill to make 40 tons of steel. >Third, what do you want to see, a repeat of Apollo? Okay lets spend ten >trillion dollars to put a man on the third planet of Alpha Centauri and >then >go home and quit? Not me. > >I want to see a thriving orbital industry sending hundreds of ships out >to >mine asteroids, ferry goods to and from orbital installations, the moon >and >the planets. Research stations all over the solar system, inhabited stations >all over the place. In short lots and LOTS of experienced orbital know >how. Then you don't want the interstellar or any exploration missions, you want a earth side market for your space based industry. Without that it will all blow away to dust like NASA after Apollo. Doesn't mater how much stuff you put up there. If its up there for no real general pourpose, It'll be abandoned. >Anything can be manufactured in space. Many things can be manufactured >BETTER. I have a get out of jail card and I think space is the equivalent >of >Boardwalk and Park Place with hotels...very profitable. Good idea, but a different conversation. Space tourism could easily dwarf anything we're talking about. It would nessisarily keep any manufacturing facilities going. (How many factories moved to Cancun, or Jamaca?) But they would feed a HUGE launch industry and provide launch infastructure to drool for, as well as residence facilities for research and consructin platforms to house their staffs on. >> Asteroids an't thought to be solid. Best bet is sticky ruble piles. > >Some are, some aren't. Depends on what they are made of. Some are thought >to >be rubble piles, some are thought to be solid. For mining purposes the >rubble pile actually works better. The slag form the smelting operation >can >then be fused together to make large structures. The University of Minnesota >has a good class on this. > >> >> I though congress changed that law last year? > >The law has nothing to do with Congress, it is the FAA that has to change >it. I could be wrong, but I don't think they have actually done so yet. >It >was one of the major reasons Kistler Aerospace took there project to >Australia and it did have some influence on SeaLaunch as well. Congress has to change the law and when they found Kistler was being forced off shore they did (I'm pretty sure). >> Oh, folks are also working on the space planes themselves. > >Lots and lots of folks are working on space planes! Mostly they are after >the X-Prize. Some actually intend to make money at this. Space access is the most interesting. ;) >Lee Kelly From VM Fri Apr 21 09:57:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2107" "Thursday" "20" "April" "2000" "23:51:51" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "55" "Re: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2107 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3L3q3L28114 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3L3q2428106 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:52:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.db.319fa7f (3700) for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:51:51 -0400 (EDT) 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: How to build a station. Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:51:51 EDT In a message dated 4/20/00 9:50:04 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> In a message dated 4/20/00 2:45:48 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >> >With a 40:1 mass/payload ratio 5 tons is a 200 ton space/craft, >> >a bit large for a first time design. How about 2.5 tons... 100 ton >> >space-craft. >> >> Why do you assume a 40 to 1 ratio? > > There is about a 20:1 mass ratio from the rocket equation >for a ISP of 350. ( lox/ kerosene or lox/ch4 ). If you assume >the mass of the craft empty is the same of the payload, that >becomes a 40:1 ratio. That doesn't sound right, I remember a paper about LoX/Kero SSTO I I was pretty sure it didn't need that kind of mass ratio? Wait a minute I worked that out for a chapter draft, I got 17.3 to 1 for a Kero/LOx SSTO And with a airbreather combined cycle it came out to 5.8 to 1. I was assuming 1/4th of dry weight was cargo. Cost of fuel per pound of cargo was $7.3 and $2.7. Anyway since we were refuring to combined cycle birds I couldn't figure out 40 to 1. >> Solar in general is expensive. The panels however are simpler and more >> relyable. > >They have been claiming cheap solar panels, as long as the have >been claiming cheap access into space. The term cheap takes on stange meanings in the space busness. ;) >> A LOX/Kero rocket based SSTO would use 14:1 fuel/craft ratio. The air >> breather could cut that to 7-1 maybe less. Given Kerosine is far more >dence, >> it needs a far smaller and lighter tank. > > I just think in the near future +25 years the price of oil/gas will >skyrocket and CH4 will be cheaper than synthetic Kerosene. Projects ae with current projected reserves, we can meet all growing oil needs for 200-300 years. Prices have been going down (eratically) for a century, and is likely to keep doing so for another century or so. If need be, there is LOTS of oil drifting around near earth space. So if you can cut the launch costs of empty frighters enough, you can sell oil from space down here. Global warming folks will scream though. ;) > >> Kelly Kelly From VM Fri Apr 21 09:57:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4770" "Friday" "21" "April" "2000" "16:16:29" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "105" "starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4770 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3LEH1h12358 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 07:17:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3LEGx412338 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 07:16:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA25393 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 16:16:29 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200004211416.QAA25393@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: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 16:16:29 +0200 (MET DST) Geez, let us cut off that silly FTL travel thread... > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 21 05:22:51 2000 > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 4/20/00 8:29:57 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > > >In a message dated Thursday, April 20, 2000 5:48 PM, KellySt@aol.com writes: [...] > > >> Chose the best system for the project not the project to promote > >> your agenda. Dson't think like a advocate. > >> You couldn't possible mine, smelt, and manufacture most > >> of what you'ld need - certainly not for less launch mass > >> then a reasonably sized station. Why do we NEED industry in orbit? > >> If the answer is you feel industry in orbit is important, > >> go to jail, do not collect $200. You need to bepractical > >> and profitable. Launching the material from earth for initial > >> projects would be far more cost effective and safe. Most > >> you couldn't make in space anyway. At least you exercise > >> the launcher and save some serious bucks. > > > >Whose promoting an agenda? > > [...] > >Second, an interplanetary craft might max out at only a few > >hundred tons, hundreds of times smaller than an interstellar probe. > >Add up the launch cost of oh, say a 10,000 ton probe if every > >piece is lifted to orbit from Earth on Titans and Arianes. > >What fraction of the PLANETARY Gross Product is that? > > If your lifting 10,000 tons you can cut lift costs dramatically. > Cut costs to 1/100th that of a titan or such and the total > lift cost would be $2,000,000,000 About the cost of 1 year > of shuttle launches (under 200 tons possible lift). [...] > Now obviously your not going to want to lift millions to hundreds > of millions of tons for a big starship if you could get it cheaper > in space. But you wouldn't want to life a thousand ton steel mill > to make 40 tons of steel. > Of course, you are right, Kelly, when speaking of building a single orbital station (or possibly even some tens of them), or a single interstellar ship (and unmanned for that - you cannot send people for tens of years journey through space without prior experience with long-living self-sufficient space habitats). However, the really permanent presence of mankind in space (including long-duration long-range interstellar travel) cannot be assured without building industrial and settlement infrastructure in space (meaning outside Earth) as well. You better start to think how to build it as fast as possible, instead of finding only excuses for postponing it toward some "better future". Otherwise, the "better future" never happens... > >Third, what do you want to see, a repeat of Apollo? > >Okay lets spend ten trillion dollars to put a man > >on the third planet of Alpha Centauri and then go home and quit? > >Not me. > > > >I want to see a thriving orbital industry sending hundreds > > of ships out to mine asteroids, ferry goods to and from orbital > >installations, the moon and the planets. Research stations > >all over the solar system, inhabited stations all over the place. > >In short lots and LOTS of experienced orbital know how. > > Then you don't want the interstellar or any exploration missions, > you want a earth side market for your space based industry. > Without that it will all blow away to dust like NASA after Apollo. > Doesn't mater how much stuff you put up there. > If its up there for no real general pourpose, It'll be abandoned. > Sure, if you assume that any installations in space are eventually Earth-centered, i.e., their only end purpose is to bring something useful down here. However, the space infrastructure Lee is speaking about will be needed in most part for space operations - not for sustaining Earth people, but for sustaining people living outside Earth. > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 21 05:55:56 2000 > From: KellySt@aol.com > Subject: Re: starship-design: How to build a station. > [...] > > Projects ae with current projected reserves, we can meet all > growing oil needs for 200-300 years. Prices have been going down > (eratically) for a century, and is likely to keep doing so > for another century or so. If need be, there is LOTS of oil > drifting around near earth space. > So you see, infrastructure in space will be needed anyway... ;-) > So if you can cut the launch > costs of empty frighters enough, you can sell oil from space down > here. Global warming folks will scream though. ;) > One more reason to put the oil-hungry industry in space instead. You will get an additional benefits: the industry in space will rather use small amounts of oil to burn. That is, unless you are ready to ship up lots of oxygen from Earth... ;-)) -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Fri Apr 21 09:57:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3873" "Friday" "21" "April" "2000" "11:23:02" "-0400" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@worldnet.att.net" nil "80" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3873 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3LFOrh04355 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:24:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3LFOq404347 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:24:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.76.99.2]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000421152446.IXSN1339.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 15:24:46 +0000 Message-ID: <39007256.5C833401@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <200004211416.QAA25393@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> 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: Zenon Kulpa , starship Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:23:02 -0400 > > > Of course, you are right, Kelly, when speaking of building > a single orbital station (or possibly even some tens of them), > or a single interstellar ship (and unmanned for that - > you cannot send people for tens of years journey through space without > prior experience with long-living self-sufficient space habitats). > However, the really permanent presence of mankind in space > (including long-duration long-range interstellar travel) > cannot be assured without building industrial and settlement > infrastructure in space (meaning outside Earth) as well. > You better start to think how to build it as fast as possible, > instead of finding only excuses for postponing it toward some > "better future". Otherwise, the "better future" never happens... This is all going to be tricky, I think. The commercial/industrial-scale infrastructure will be needed to establish and maintain settlement and profitability, but nobody will want to pay for it all up front, and I don't see how it could become profitable until it's established -- a catch-22 of sorts. But once it is established, there will be a market shift; first profits will go dirtside to pay the investment, but then the settlement will become its own internal market, like a new country, and these profit exchanges will overlap somewhat. This brings up a question of law and administration, of course, and who has rights to what. That will be a simple matter of contract and treaty _until_ someone up there sees that they have the resources to become autonomous; then the real fun begins. It really looks as if someone's going to have to grab their bootstraps and give a good yank . . . > > > > >Third, what do you want to see, a repeat of Apollo? > > >Okay lets spend ten trillion dollars to put a man > > >on the third planet of Alpha Centauri and then go home and quit? > > >Not me. > > > > > >I want to see a thriving orbital industry sending hundreds > > > of ships out to mine asteroids, ferry goods to and from orbital > > >installations, the moon and the planets. Research stations > > >all over the solar system, inhabited stations all over the place. > > >In short lots and LOTS of experienced orbital know how. > > > > Then you don't want the interstellar or any exploration missions, > > you want a earth side market for your space based industry. > > Without that it will all blow away to dust like NASA after Apollo. > > Doesn't mater how much stuff you put up there. > > If its up there for no real general pourpose, It'll be abandoned. > > > Sure, if you assume that any installations in space are eventually > Earth-centered, i.e., their only end purpose is to bring > something useful down here. However, the space infrastructure > Lee is speaking about will be needed in most part for space > operations - not for sustaining Earth people, > but for sustaining people living outside Earth. > > > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 21 05:55:56 2000 > > From: KellySt@aol.com > > Subject: Re: starship-design: How to build a station. > > > [...] > > > > Projects ae with current projected reserves, we can meet all > > growing oil needs for 200-300 years. Prices have been going down > > (eratically) for a century, and is likely to keep doing so > > for another century or so. If need be, there is LOTS of oil > > drifting around near earth space. > > > So you see, infrastructure in space will be needed anyway... ;-) > > > So if you can cut the launch > > costs of empty frighters enough, you can sell oil from space down > > here. Global warming folks will scream though. ;) > > > One more reason to put the oil-hungry industry in space instead. > You will get an additional benefits: the industry in space > will rather use small amounts of oil to burn. That is, > unless you are ready to ship up lots of oxygen from Earth... ;-)) > > -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Fri Apr 21 09:57:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["723" "Friday" "21" "April" "2000" "09:50:22" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: How to build a station." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 723 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3LFiaF11717 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:44:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3LFiY411707 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:44:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin61.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.61]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA14426 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:44:29 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <390078BE.40D6AEC7@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: <17.47e4e60.26310dc2@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: How to build a station. Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:50:22 -0600 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >How about a fractal wing? triangular pattern -- smallest shapes > >hypersonic, middle pattern sonic, outer pattern sub-sonic. > Not really since its harder to test and you want make lift drag for highest > sppeds in rentry. It might be harder design, but all wings are harder to test at the very high speeds.The advantage with a fractal wing is that it is full of holes. if designed right really hot air would flow out the holes, yet for slower speeds with higher air density would plug the holes. >-- "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 Apr 21 09:57:11 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1330" "Friday" "21" "April" "2000" "10:02:43" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "31" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1330 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3LFuu317558 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3LFus417537 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:56:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin61.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.61]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA14962 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:56:50 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <39007BA3.3E85C547@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: <200004211416.QAA25393@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> <39007256.5C833401@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: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:02:43 -0600 Curtis Manges wrote: > This is all going to be tricky, I think. The commercial/industrial-scale > infrastructure will be needed to establish and maintain settlement and > profitability, but nobody will want to pay for it all up front, and I don't see > > how > it could become profitable until it's established -- a catch-22 of sorts. But once > it is established, there will be a market shift; first profits will go dirtside to > pay the investment, but then the settlement will become its own internal market, > like a new country, and these profit exchanges will overlap somewhat. Until we get the transportation infrastructure in place none of this can happen. In some cases the structure is easy to set up, like rail roads. In the 1800's railroads use coal,and steel. more railroads more coal and steel you need, to make more coal and steel you use more trains requiring more umm coal and steel. It seems like everybody is develping new rocket motors, but nobody is using them. Lets pick a design and get it to work, if Mr Ford waited for the best car design we all would still be walking. Get it to work, then refine it. 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 Fri Apr 21 10:46:57 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3199" "Friday" "21" "April" "2000" "19:39:42" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "61" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3199 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3LHeES29807 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3LHeC429627 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:40:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id TAA25633 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:39:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200004211739.TAA25633@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: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:39:42 +0200 (MET DST) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 21 17:29:04 2000 > From: Curtis Manges > > > Of course, you are right, Kelly, when speaking of building > > a single orbital station (or possibly even some tens of them), > > or a single interstellar ship (and unmanned for that - > > you cannot send people for tens of years journey through space without > > prior experience with long-living self-sufficient space habitats). > > However, the really permanent presence of mankind in space > > (including long-duration long-range interstellar travel) > > cannot be assured without building industrial and settlement > > infrastructure in space (meaning outside Earth) as well. > > You better start to think how to build it as fast as possible, > > instead of finding only excuses for postponing it toward some > > "better future". Otherwise, the "better future" never happens... > > This is all going to be tricky, I think. The commercial/industrial-scale > infrastructure will be needed to establish and maintain settlement > and profitability, but nobody will want to pay for it all up front, > and I don't see how it could become profitable until it's established -- > a catch-22 of sorts. > Exactly. It is the biggest problem on the way to make mankind a truly spacefaring civilization. One possibility seems to be a happy event of some new space industry popping up - such that it is profitable up front, as operated from Earth, but at some time of its development it is found to become even more profitable when it starts using space resources - enough so to justify the next big investment in, say, asteroid mining or something. What kind of an industry it could be? Nobody knows as for now, I am afraid. Clarke back in the fifties thought it will be large manned geosynchronous commsats - but it fizzled, as miniaturization, automation, and reliability of electronics made human crews redundant. Currently many look with hope towards space tourism - but I am not so sure here... Others wait for development of nanotechnology, as it is going to make space exploration much cheaper (but, on the other side, advanced unmanned exploration will be then even cheaper and more reliable...). Any other ideas? > But once it is established, there will be > a market shift; first profits will go dirtside to pay the investment, > but then the settlement will become its own internal market, > like a new country, and these profit exchanges will overlap somewhat. > > This brings up a question of law and administration, of course, > and who has rights to what. That will be a simple matter of contract > and treaty _until_ someone up there sees that they have the resources > to become autonomous; then the real fun begins. > Yeah, look at the Robinson's Mars trilogy... [Though, generally, I am of rather low opinion about the book - possibly exaggerated by the awfully made Polish translation I have read...] > It really looks as if someone's going to have to grab their > bootstraps and give a good yank . . . > So, ahoy, all crew on the desk! ;-)) [Sorry, I do not know the proper English maritime command language ;-))]. -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Fri Apr 21 10:55:27 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2031" "Friday" "21" "April" "2000" "19:52:00" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "40" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2031 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3LHqU407654 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3LHqS407490 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:52:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id TAA25646 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:52:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200004211752.TAA25646@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: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:52:00 +0200 (MET DST) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 21 18:02:13 2000 > From: Ben Franchuk > > Curtis Manges wrote: > > > This is all going to be tricky, I think. The commercial/industrial-scale > > infrastructure will be needed to establish and maintain settlement and > > profitability, but nobody will want to pay for it all up front, and I don't see > > how > > it could become profitable until it's established -- a catch-22 of sorts. But once > > it is established, there will be a market shift; first profits will go dirtside to > > pay the investment, but then the settlement will become its own internal market, > > like a new country, and these profit exchanges will overlap somewhat. > > Until we get the transportation infrastructure in place none of this > can happen. In some cases the structure is easy to set up, like rail > roads. In the 1800's railroads use coal,and steel. more railroads > more coal and steel you need, to make more coal and steel you use > more trains requiring more umm coal and steel. > Yes, but besides coal and steel, there were also other goods that benefitted from being transported by railroads (not speaking of other uses of steel and coal) - and it was they that really fuelled the cycle. Nothing of the sort is visible in space industry today. Tourism? I doubt it... > It seems like everybody is develping new rocket motors, but nobody is > using them. Lets pick a design and get it to work, if Mr Ford waited > for the best car design we all would still be walking. > > Get it to work, then refine it. > The problem is, there is still no market for use of heavy lift rockets - the kind needed for building our infrastructure - which were already developed in numbers, starting from Saturn V, through Russian Energia to French Ariane 5. They were/are here to take, but some already went to scrap heap and others are on the straight road to it... Just nobody has enough of heavy cargo to sustain their operation and refinement. -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Fri Apr 21 11:16:40 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1776" "Friday" "21" "April" "2000" "12:16:10" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "41" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1776 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3LIANd12458 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:10:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.jetnet.ab.ca (root@main.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.11.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3LIAM412436 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:10:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (dialin61.jetnet.ab.ca [207.153.6.61]) by main.jetnet.ab.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA21915 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:10:17 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <39009AEA.4DB6B2F3@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: <200004211739.TAA25633@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: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:16:10 -0600 Zenon Kulpa wrote: > Exactly. It is the biggest problem on the way to make mankind > a truly spacefaring civilization. One possibility seems to be > a happy event of some new space industry popping up - such that > it is profitable up front, as operated from Earth, but at some time > of its development it is found to become even more profitable > when it starts using space resources - enough so to justify > the next big investment in, say, asteroid mining or something. > What kind of an industry it could be? > Nobody knows as for now, I am afraid. Clarke back in the fifties > thought it will be large manned geosynchronous commsats - but it > fizzled, as miniaturization, automation, and reliability of electronics > made human crews redundant. Currently many look with hope > towards space tourism - but I am not so sure here... > Others wait for development of nanotechnology, as it is going to make > space exploration much cheaper (but, on the other side, advanced > unmanned exploration will be then even cheaper and more reliable...). > Any other ideas? > Yes the internet could be the ticket, to get the ball rolling for space access. I don't mean for new data links via satalight, but rather it gives the people of earth a chance to commiunicate and mingle on world wide basis. Space access has to be global and easy access into space. Only on this scale would there be people wanting and demanding to go into space. > So, ahoy, all crew on the desk! ;-)) > [Sorry, I do not know the proper English maritime command language ;-))]. Chuckle > -- Zenon Kulpa -- "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 Apr 24 10:08:19 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1157" "Friday" "21" "April" "2000" "21:49:21" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "31" "RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1157 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3M2wPN12561 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:58:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3M2wO412555 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p457.gnt.com [204.49.91.73]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id VAA16323; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 21:58:13 -0500 Message-ID: <003901bfac06$855ed870$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: <39007256.5C833401@worldnet.att.net> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Curtis Manges'" , "'Zenon Kulpa'" , "'starship'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 21:49:21 -0500 > This is all going to be tricky, I think. The > commercial/industrial-scale > infrastructure will be needed to establish and maintain settlement and > profitability, but nobody will want to pay for it all up > front, and I don't see how > it could become profitable until it's established -- a > catch-22 of sorts. But once > it is established, there will be a market shift; first > profits will go dirtside to > pay the investment, but then the settlement will become its > own internal market, > like a new country, and these profit exchanges will overlap somewhat. > > This brings up a question of law and administration, of > course, and who has rights > to what. That will be a simple matter of contract and treaty > _until_ someone up > there sees that they have the resources to become autonomous; > then the real fun > begins. > > It really looks as if someone's going to have to grab their > bootstraps and give a > good yank . . . Well, you have just synopsized the reasoning of the Commercial Space Transportation Study (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codec/codeci/webmaster/CommSpaceTrans/Index.h tml) for those of you who are interested. Lee From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:19 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["973" "Friday" "21" "April" "2000" "21:55:44" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "26" "RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 973 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3M2wdY12583 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:58:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3M2wc412578 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:58:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p457.gnt.com [204.49.91.73]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id VAA16343; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 21:58:19 -0500 Message-ID: <003a01bfac06$88bde1f0$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: <39007BA3.3E85C547@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: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 21:55:44 -0500 Ben Franchuk wrote: > > Until we get the transportation infrastructure in place none of this > can happen. In some cases the structure is easy to set up, like rail > roads. In the 1800's railroads use coal,and steel. more railroads > more coal and steel you need, to make more coal and steel you use > more trains requiring more umm coal and steel. Not a good analogy. Railroads would be better compared to FTL starships being invented after people had already spread to hundreds of stars, they come AFTER the market is in place, not before. > > It seems like everybody is develping new rocket motors, but nobody is > using them. > Lets pick a design and get it to work, if Mr Ford waited for the best > car > design we all would still be walking. > > Get it to work, then refine it. Which is what the Space Access people are trying to do. Reinvent the Model T. Certainly not the "perfect" car, but it was the key concept that revolutionized ground transportation. Lee From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:19 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7000" "Friday" "21" "April" "2000" "21:38:31" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "170" "starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7000 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3M2wM112552 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3M2wL412536 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:58:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p457.gnt.com [204.49.91.73]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id VAA16317; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 21:58:10 -0500 Message-ID: <003801bfac06$82f2e180$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: , Subject: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 21:38:31 -0500 > Or biulding a titanic in segments to be assembled in the > feild. Prefabing > little segments of a statin to be assembled in orbit means > lots more seams to > leak. Besides its not like your likely to have a lot of > things in the > station that you'l have lots of copies of. So mass productin > is a bit > dificult. You still missed the point, if you are only building one of the end product, it doesn't matter if you prefab it in sections and boost it or boost it all at once. Cost savings arise when you build the SAME piece over and over again. (I will grant that you can't build an interstellar ship and boost it all in one piece, at least, not yet.) However, if you have an industry that is mass producing engines for instance, it will be cheaper to use several of those engines if necessary rather than building one special purpose engine to do the same job. It will be cheaper still if those engines are all being mass produced in orbit from materials which are already in orbit rather than boosting ANY of the components from Earth. > > > No because the infastructure to build the probes and early > stations is much > larger and heavier then years worth of probes and statins would be. Yes, the infrastructure IS expensive. I stated that right up front. But it is also paying it's own way. So the cost is amortized across other projects besides just one interstellar craft. > Expensive launch is much less of a problem since the bulk of > the cost of a > good reusable is building the craft and keeping up its > facilities and such. > So if you quadruple the launch rate the total cost goes up > far far less. In > some cases hardly at all. Just fuel and wear. Not true. See below for more. > With DC-x they found if you > launched 3 times a week or three times a year you had to keep > most of the > same people on in similar pay rates. Spare parts and such ae > a pretty low in > comparison, and ofcourse the cost to develop and build the > craft are divided > over the total number of flights. That much is true but keep going.... > If your lifting 10,000 tons you can cut lift costs > dramatically. Cut costs > to 1/100th that of a titan or such and the total lift cost would be > $2,000,000,000 About the cost of 1 year of shuttle launches > (under 200 tons > possible lift). Ahh, but here is the mistake. You can't realize significant cost savings with EXPENDABLE boosters such as Titan or Ariane no matter how often you launch. Sure, you get to amortize the cost of the launch crew and facilities across more launches, BUT, that launch crew and those facilities cost thousands of times what a DC-X costs to launch in the first place. Now if you can launch a DC-X on such a schedule you are right, you will reap a one hundred fold decrease in launch cost because it IS NOT EXPENDABLE. Unfortunately we need a one thousand fold decrease even for the mundane orbital industry I am promoting. Nothing currently on the drawing board is capable of putting an interstellar craft into orbit even if we could build it. Not to be repetitious but, you cannot reduce cost by 100 times no matter how many times a year you launch an expendable booster. > Shows you how bad current launchers are. In theory the lift > costs could be > cut even another factor of ten or 100. 1000! > Now obviously your not going to want to lift millions to > hundreds of millions > of tons for a big starship if you could get it cheaper in > space. But you > wouldn't want to life a thousand ton steel mill to make 40 > tons of steel. Which is why I said LOTS of orbital industry paying it own way doing other things. The steel for the interstellar probe becomes just one more job, not THE job. > >Third, what do you want to see, a repeat of Apollo? Okay > lets spend ten > >trillion dollars to put a man on the third planet of Alpha > Centauri and > >then > >go home and quit? Not me. > > > >I want to see a thriving orbital industry sending hundreds > of ships out > >to > >mine asteroids, ferry goods to and from orbital > installations, the moon > >and > >the planets. Research stations all over the solar system, > inhabited stations > >all over the place. In short lots and LOTS of experienced > orbital know > >how. > > Then you don't want the interstellar or any exploration > missions, you want a > earth side market for your space based industry. Without > that it will all > blow away to dust like NASA after Apollo. Doesn't mater how > much stuff you > put up there. If its up there for no real general pourpose, It'll be > abandoned. Similar arguments abounded when America was colonized. You should really read some of the history (and I don't mean the popular sort) of the early days of America. European investors tried all kinds of crazy schemes to make a profit in America. Glass blowing comes to mind. A man decided he would create a native glass blowing industry to export glass bottles and such to Europe. Wonderful idea, but it could never compete with the glass which was being made IN Europe, which was invariably cheaper because of transportation costs. Nevertheless, things did work out that there WERE things to trade for and here we are today. I believe that Earth will always be a market for goods which simply cannot be manufactured in a gravity well or in atmosphere, but that eventually (and rather sooner than later) space born consumers will predominate the demand. Just as in the early days of Colonial America, a mindset will develop that we (the space faring) will trade with ourselves first before we give anything to the Earth borne who put us here in the first place. > >Anything can be manufactured in space. Many things can be > manufactured > >BETTER. I have a get out of jail card and I think space is > the equivalent > >of > >Boardwalk and Park Place with hotels...very profitable. > > Good idea, but a different conversation. Space tourism could > easily dwarf > anything we're talking about. It would nessisarily keep any > manufacturing > facilities going. (How many factories moved to Cancun, or > Jamaca?) But they > would feed a HUGE launch industry and provide launch > infastructure to drool > for, as well as residence facilities for research and > consructin platforms to > house their staffs on. Interesting point, but not quite the one I had in mind. Still you are correct, any industry in space that creates the demand for more industry starts a chain reaction that cannot help but to beneficial to us in the long run. I'm not too proud to accept tourism or even entertainment as the vehicle. Hmmm, we're back to my not so hidden agenda problem again! > Congress has to change the law and when they found Kistler > was being forced > off shore they did (I'm pretty sure). Nope, it is nothing more than a RULE established by the FAA. And like any bueuracracy, they don't want to let go of control. I will try to find references this weekend. This was a big deal a year or so ago, it shouldn't be hard to look up. Lee From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["10272" "Saturday" "22" "April" "2000" "13:54:15" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "213" "starship-design: Barriers to Space Tourism" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 10272 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3MJAPd16175 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3MJAO416168 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:10:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p447.gnt.com [204.49.91.63]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA20277 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 14:10:21 -0500 Message-ID: <004601bfac8e$51d5c1c0$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: Barriers to Space Tourism Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 13:54:15 -0500 S P A C E V I E W S Issue 1999.07.01 1999 July 1 http://www.spaceviews.com/1999/07/ Barriers to Space Tourism by Jeff Foust The concept of space tourism has been a compelling vision for many space activists. Opening space to more than just elite government-funded explorers drives to heart of many people's interest in space. Yet, nearly 40 years after the first human flew into space, we are still several years away -- according to the most optimistic estimates -- from flying passengers, rather than astronauts and cosmonauts, into space. What's holding us back? Over one hundred people gathered in Washington, DC June 23 and 24 to discuss the possibilities -- and problems -- of space tourism at the first such conference in the United States, organized by the Space Transportation Association (STA) and its Space Travel and Tourism Division. The conference brought in a diverse group of people from not just the aerospace industry, but tourism, finance, and government officials as well, debating a wide spectrum of issues related to space tourism. By the end of the conference, several key issues stood out as the major hurdles on the path to developing a space tourism industry. Some were obvious -- the lack of money to develop commercial vehicles for use in tourism -- while others were less obvious and specific to tourism alone. The conference provided no easy answers to these issues, but raised questions that will have to be answered before paying passengers can routinely fly into space. Where are the Investors? Perhaps the biggest hurdle for space tourism to overcome is one that affects not only tourism but the whole launch vehicle industry in general: a lack of money. Speaker after speaker noted the lack of investors lining up to provide money to companies developing reusable launch vehicles that could be used in space tourism pursuits. Tom Rogers of the Space Transportation Association called the lack of private-sector funding the "most important issue" to come out of the conference. While some have argued that the potentially huge demand for space tourism could prove to investors that a large enough market exists for reusable launch vehicles (RLVs), those people trying to line up funding disagree. "I never mention space tourism on Wall Street," said Rotary Rocket's Gary Hudson, noting investors' skepticism with the concept of space tourism. "I have enough problems as it is." More than one speaker noted, perhaps with a twinge of jealousy, the huge influx of venture capital going into Internet startups. "It would be great if people would invest in rocket companies like they do in Internet companies," noted Eric Anderson, vice president of Space Adventures. The chief challenge, noted LunaCorp president David Gump, is that "space and expensive go hand-in-hand" in the eyes of investors. In addition, people still closely link space with NASA, requiring some kind of seal-of-approval from the space agency for private efforts. Not everyone shared this pessimistic view of the investment market. "People are screaming for investment opportunities," claimed Wolfgang Demisch, managing director at Wasserstein, Pernella and Co. He advised companies to "go gradually" and take advantage of existing possibilities. He did note, though, that the easiest path to developing a space tourism company might involve incorporating outside the U.S, to avoid thorny regulatory issues. Tom Watts, a vice president at Merrill Lynch, concurred, saying that investors are willing to take known risks in a business but are unwilling to take legislative or regulatory risks. Perhaps the ideal position for a space tourism or launch vehicle company to be in, Watts said, is to be not the first to develop a RLV that can carry tourists, but the second. Once investors see a plan work, he explained, they "rush like lemmings" to fund similar proposals. A related issue to funding of RLVs is certification of these vehicles. The X Prize's Peter Diamandis noted that in aviation today, the cost of certifying a new aircraft can cost up to ten time as much as it did to build it. This becomes a serious issue for RLV developers, when costs to build the vehicles will go into the hundreds of millions. A key question, then, he said, is what does the certification of an RLV require, and how much will it cost? One solution that Diamandis and Patrick Collins, a space tourism researcher with the Japanese space agency NASDA, suggested is the concept of the "accredited passenger". The proposal follows existing Securities and Exchange Commission regulations, which allow companies to raise money from "accredited investors" -- companies and wealthy individuals who are aware of and willing to accept the risks of investing in an unproven company. Similarly, an accredited passenger would be a person knowledgeable about spaceflight who is aware of and willing to accept the risks of flying in a new launch vehicle that has not yet met FAA certification. Building Awareness and Credibility Dealing with the so-called "giggle factor" -- the incredulousness people express when they hear abut the concept of space tourism -- is also a hurdle for space tourism companies to overcome. Or, as Space Adventure's Anderson put it, how do you "sell space to people without sounding a little crazy?" Space Adventures's plan has been its "Steps to Space" project, where it markets a set of tours and programs that builds its way up to eventual space tourism. Their programs start with low-key programs like Space Camp and shuttle launch trips, and moves up to zero-g plane rides in Russia and flights "to the edge of space" in a MiG-25. Building up awareness and credibility is a "huge challenge", agreed Scott Fitzsimmons, vice president of Zegrahm Space Voyages. To maintain credibility, he said, space tourism companies will have to be up front with its early customers. He drew parallels between space tourism and deep-sea submersible tourism, another venture Zegrahm is involved with. The Size of the Market Another key issue brought up during the conference is the uncertainty on the size of the overall space tourism market. The number of people willing to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions, to fly into space is filled with wild guesses and backed by surprisingly little research. Jerry Mallett, president of the Adventure Travel Society, surprised many when he suggested that a half-million people per year would be willing to spend $100,000 or more on a trip into space, numbers much higher than had been suggested in the past. By comparison, consultant Ivan Bekey believes that a market of 100,000 people a year could exist if prices were brought down to the $50,000-$100,000 range. These wide variations in numbers led Rogers to call for better and broader market surveys, to provide a better estimate on the number of people willing to pay a certain amount to fly. Market estimates that are within a factor of two to three are good enough, he said; the problem arises when various estimates differ by a factor of ten or more. To date, such extensive market research has not been conducted. Patrick Collins noted that less than $100,000 has been spent to date on all space tourism market surveys combined. Extensive market research might seem too expensive, Mallett noted, but may not necessarily be the case in the long run. Who Can Go? The estimates for the number of people willing to fly into space do not take into account any medical restrictions that might keep some willing passengers grounded. What restrictions that should be placed on space tourists is an area just now being investigated. The FAA's Dr. Melchor Antunano, manager of the agency's aeromedical education branch, described the work he was undertaking defining medical requirements for "aerospace pilots". While taking into account the unique rigors of the space environment, these requirements will have a "level of flexibility" in them similar to that used in private pilot certification, but much unlike NASA's strict astronaut requirements. "NASA could not use them", he said. While not necessarily an immediate problem for short, suborbital flights, the physiological and psychological effects of extended space tourism flights will also need to be investigated, according to Harvey Wickman, director of the Aerospace Psychological Laboratory at Claremont McKenna College. Microgravity will have repercussions not fully thought through now on everything from the management of bodily fluids to how people meet and interact with one another. While space tourists can't be expected to go through the extended, thorough training of astronauts, Wickman said that training will have to be longer than the preflight safety briefing on commercial aircraft today. Plans and Hope for the Future Because of the wide variety of viewpoints expressed at the conference, organizers decide to bypass plans on finding a consensus on future work to be done to promote space tourism. Instead, the STA plans to synthesize a paper based on the topics raised at the conference, seek comment from attendees, and use that to set an agenda for the next year. Progress made in the coming year will be used as the starting point for the next space tourism conference the STA is planning for next year. "There are deep-rooted institutional problems to deal with here," Tom Rogers of the STA said. "Something is different about the space business because it's so public. That's something we need to get on top of." While the near future of space tourism remains uncertain, the hope remains that one day ordinary people -- and even retired astronauts -- might fly in space. Alan Ladwig, senior advisor to the NASA administrator, tied in the upcoming 30th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing by noting that, while Buzz Aldrin has made his interest in space tourism very clear, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins have been quiet on the issue. Ladwig, however, unearthed a comment Armstrong made in 1970 when the astronaut was asked if he thought he would ever get a chance to go into space again. "I'd be surprised if I didn't have a chance to buy a ticket some day," he said. From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1791" "Saturday" "22" "April" "2000" "13:41:42" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "38" "starship-design: FAA Regulation and Certification for Space Launch..." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1791 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3MJAJ516115 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3MJAH416107 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p447.gnt.com [204.49.91.63]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA20255 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 14:10:15 -0500 Message-ID: <004101bfac8e$4ea409d0$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: FAA Regulation and Certification for Space Launch... Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 13:41:42 -0500 Searching for info on the FAA Space Launch question, this just about all I can find. It dates from 1998. "But the key to Kistler’s plans in the Australian desert have less to do with the timing of getting its own, untested proposals into space ahead of its rivals. This proposal is all about the American regulatory environment. Technology for commercial launch vehicles is moving faster than the Federal Aviation Administration's ability to provide regulations for it. Patti Grace Smith, an associate administrator at the FAA's Commercial Space Transportation office, says that the development of RLVs posed "the most challenges" to the FAA. Ms Smith says the FAA currently has the power to license launch vehicle, but has no authority over landings; making it impossible for the agency to regulate and approve for use commercial RLVs. Legislation that has already passed the House of Representatives, with a similar version already drafted in the Senate, with give the FAA the authority it needs to handle reentry and reuse issues. Manuel Vega, chief of regulations of the FAA's Commercial Space Transportation office, says 16 pages of regulations currently exist for commercial space launch vehicles, with new regulations under development. Two new regulations, which call for updated licensing rules and financial responsibility by launch companies, have been open for public comment. More ominously for South Australia is the fact that more regulations which would cover private and state-owned launch sites are under development. Such is the concern over a possibly unfavourable regulatory environment that all three companies - Kistler, Rotary Rocket and Pioneer Rocketplane - began the search two years ago for launch sites outside the United Sates. " More to come... Lee From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["757" "Saturday" "22" "April" "2000" "13:44:50" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "28" "starship-design: RLVCountdown" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 757 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3MJALJ16122 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3MJAJ416117 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:10:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p447.gnt.com [204.49.91.63]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA20264 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 14:10:18 -0500 Message-ID: <004201bfac8e$5047a7b0$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0043_01BFAC64.67719FB0" 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: RLVCountdown Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 13:44:50 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0043_01BFAC64.67719FB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This page contains some great information and links to even more information on space access. http://www.particle.kth.se/~lindsey/RLVCountdown.html Lee ------=_NextPart_000_0043_01BFAC64.67719FB0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="RLVCountdown.url" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="RLVCountdown.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [DEFAULT] BASEURL=http://www.particle.kth.se/~lindsey/RLVCountdown.html [InternetShortcut] URL=http://www.particle.kth.se/~lindsey/RLVCountdown.html Modified=10CEBEA68AACBF0138 ------=_NextPart_000_0043_01BFAC64.67719FB0-- From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1089" "Saturday" "22" "April" "2000" "14:49:47" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "39" "starship-design: Licensing" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1089 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3MJp7V25170 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3MJp5425164 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:51:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p447.gnt.com [204.49.91.63]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA25602 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 14:51:04 -0500 Message-ID: <004901bfac94$02595750$0401a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004A_01BFAC6A.19834F50" 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: Licensing Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 14:49:47 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01BFAC6A.19834F50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Okay, I think I found some information. It would appear based on the link below that the Advanced Space Transportation office of the FAA is in fact issuing licenses to conduct launch operations. http://ast.faa.gov/licensing/ Unfortunately, nothing on this page says ANYTHING about landing. There is NOTHING on this site about granting a LANDING license. Lee ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01BFAC6A.19834F50 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Licensing.url" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Licensing.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [DEFAULT] BASEURL=http://ast.faa.gov/licensing/ [DOC#4#5] BASEURL=http://ast.faa.gov/licensing/header.html ORIGURL=/licensing/header.html [DOC#4#6] BASEURL=http://ast.faa.gov/licensing/intro.html ORIGURL=/licensing/intro.html [InternetShortcut] URL=http://ast.faa.gov/licensing/ Modified=B0D6363D92ACBF01F7 ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01BFAC6A.19834F50-- From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["974" "Saturday" "22" "April" "2000" "14:57:27" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "19" "starship-design: FAA - AST Strategic Plans " "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 974 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3MJxrH27682 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3MJxp427669 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:59:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p447.gnt.com [204.49.91.63]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA26513 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 14:59:49 -0500 Message-ID: <004d01bfac95$3b6e9270$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: FAA - AST Strategic Plans Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 14:57:27 -0500 Okay, here it is, the AST office within the FAA has finally been authorized to license reentry operations (see quote below". However, nothing has been done YET... Lee "AST Strategic Plans AST's corporate strategic project for fiscal year 1999 concerns further development and refinement of a concept of operations for an integrated Space and Air Traffic Management System (SATMS). After continued deliberations with the Office of the Associate Administrator for Air Traffic Services, AST intends to discuss the SATMS concept of operations with the interested public. In addition to SATMS, the Administrator's performance agreement with the Secretary of Transportation includes issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement AST's newly enacted authority to license reentry operations and active involvement in a number of integrated product teams to facilitate use by the U.S. commercial space transportation industry of Air Force space launch infrastructure." From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["8124" "Saturday" "22" "April" "2000" "21:54:58" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "227" "Re: starship-design: FTL travel" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 8124 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3N1teI13230 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:55:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3N1tc413220 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:55:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 4.98.41dd0db (14379); Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:54:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <98.41dd0db.2633b1f2@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, KellySt@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:54:58 EDT In a message dated 4/21/00 9:58:43 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> Or biulding a titanic in segments to be assembled in the >> feild. Prefabing >> little segments of a statin to be assembled in orbit means >> lots more seams to >> leak. Besides its not like your likely to have a lot of >> things in the >> station that you'l have lots of copies of. So mass productin >> is a bit >> dificult. > >You still missed the point, if you are only building one of the end product, >it doesn't matter if you prefab it in sections and boost it or boost it >all >at once. Well actually if you launch it in peaces its much more likely to work right, and not leak! >Cost savings arise when you build the SAME piece over and over >again. (I will grant that you can't build an interstellar ship and boost >it >all in one piece, at least, not yet.) > >However, if you have an industry that is mass producing engines for >instance, it will be cheaper to use several of those engines if necessary >rather than building one special purpose engine to do the same job. Probably true, course that assumes your starship can use off the shelf engines. >It >will >be cheaper still if those engines are all being mass produced in orbit >from >materials which are already in orbit rather than boosting ANY of the >components from Earth. Thats a big asumption. No reason to think a space built peace of equipment would be cheaper, likely to be more expensive. Smaller market and far greater expenses for the space based manufacturing equipment and personel. >> >> >> No because the infastructure to build the probes and early >> stations is much >> larger and heavier then years worth of probes and statins would be. > >Yes, the infrastructure IS expensive. I stated that right up front. But >it >is also paying it's own way. So the cost is amortized across other projects >besides just one interstellar craft. Are you sure its paying its way? Unless there are a lot of projects, you could be costing more. >> Expensive launch is much less of a problem since the bulk of >> the cost of a >> good reusable is building the craft and keeping up its >> facilities and such. >> So if you quadruple the launch rate the total cost goes up >> far far less. In >> some cases hardly at all. Just fuel and wear. > >Not true. See below for more. > >> With DC-x they found if you >> launched 3 times a week or three times a year you had to keep >> most of the >> same people on in similar pay rates. Spare parts and such ae >> a pretty low in >> comparison, and ofcourse the cost to develop and build the >> craft are divided >> over the total number of flights. > >That much is true but keep going.... > >> If your lifting 10,000 tons you can cut lift costs >> dramatically. Cut costs >> to 1/100th that of a titan or such and the total lift cost would be >> $2,000,000,000 About the cost of 1 year of shuttle launches >> (under 200 tons >> possible lift). > >Ahh, but here is the mistake. You can't realize significant cost savings >with EXPENDABLE boosters such as Titan or Ariane no matter how often you >launch. Sure, you get to amortize the cost of the launch crew and facilities >across more launches, === I was refuring to reusables, obviously there can't be any significant cost savings with expendables! >BUT, that launch crew and those facilities cost >thousands of times what a DC-X costs to launch in the first place. Now >if >you can launch a DC-X on such a schedule you are right, you will reap a >one >hundred fold decrease in launch cost because it IS NOT EXPENDABLE. >Unfortunately we need a one thousand fold decrease even for the mundane >orbital industry I am promoting. For those kinds of reductions, you need enough market to keep fleets of such vehicals very busy. You are after all talking about reducing cost to orbit to costs simlar to trans ocean air frieght. That takes similar sized markets, or radically improved tech. Some ae on the books, but you need massive launch requirements to run them at efficent enough rates. >Nothing currently on the drawing board >is >capable of putting an interstellar craft into orbit even if we could build >it. Not to be repetitious but, you cannot reduce cost by 100 times no matter >how many times a year you launch an expendable booster. > >> Shows you how bad current launchers are. In theory the lift >> costs could be >> cut even another factor of ten or 100. > >1000! Thats wahat I said. >> Now obviously your not going to want to lift millions to >> hundreds of millions >> of tons for a big starship if you could get it cheaper in >> space. But you >> wouldn't want to life a thousand ton steel mill to make 40 >> tons of steel. > >Which is why I said LOTS of orbital industry paying it own way doing other >things. The steel for the interstellar probe becomes just one more job, >not >THE job. Ok, then you need a market large enough to keep those facilities that busy. >> >Third, what do you want to see, a repeat of Apollo? Okay >> lets spend ten >> >trillion dollars to put a man on the third planet of Alpha >> Centauri and >> >then >> >go home and quit? Not me. >> > >> >I want to see a thriving orbital industry sending hundreds >> of ships out >> >to >> >mine asteroids, ferry goods to and from orbital >> installations, the moon >> >and >> >the planets. Research stations all over the solar system, >> inhabited stations >> >all over the place. In short lots and LOTS of experienced >> orbital know >> >how. >> >> Then you don't want the interstellar or any exploration >> missions, you want a >> earth side market for your space based industry. Without >> that it will all >> blow away to dust like NASA after Apollo. Doesn't mater how >> much stuff you >> put up there. If its up there for no real general pourpose, It'll be >> abandoned. > >Similar arguments abounded when America was colonized. You should really >read some of the history (and I don't mean the popular sort) of the early >days of America. European investors tried all kinds of crazy schemes to >make >a profit in America. Glass blowing comes to mind. A man decided he would >create a native glass blowing industry to export glass bottles and such >to >Europe. Wonderful idea, but it could never compete with the glass which >was >being made IN Europe, which was invariably cheaper because of transportation >costs. Nevertheless, things did work out that there WERE things to trade >for >and here we are today. > >I believe that Earth will always be a market for goods which simply cannot >be manufactured in a gravity well or in atmosphere, but that eventually >(and >rather sooner than later) space born consumers will predominate the demand. >Just as in the early days of Colonial America, a mindset will develop that >we (the space faring) will trade with ourselves first before we give >anything to the Earth borne who put us here in the first place. Nice list, but it doesn't alter the major problem. What can you sell to earth in enough volumn to pay for the operation of the platforms. >> >Anything can be manufactured in space. Many things can be >> manufactured >> >BETTER. I have a get out of jail card and I think space is >> the equivalent >> >of >> >Boardwalk and Park Place with hotels...very profitable. >> >> Good idea, but a different conversation. Space tourism could >> easily dwarf >> anything we're talking about. It would nessisarily keep any >> manufacturing >> facilities going. (How many factories moved to Cancun, or >> Jamaca?) But they >> would feed a HUGE launch industry and provide launch >> infastructure to drool >> for, as well as residence facilities for research and >> consructin platforms to >> house their staffs on. > >Interesting point, but not quite the one I had in mind. Still you are >correct, any industry in space that creates the demand for more industry >starts a chain reaction that cannot help but to beneficial to us in the >long >run. I'm not too proud to accept tourism or even entertainment as the >vehicle. Hmmm, we're back to my not so hidden agenda problem again! > > >Lee Kelly From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1987" "Saturday" "22" "April" "2000" "21:55:03" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "46" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1987 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3N1tD213116 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:55:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3N1tC413108 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.64.20011da (14379) for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:55:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <64.20011da.2633b1f7@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: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:55:03 EDT In a message dated 4/21/00 10:25:33 AM, clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes: >> > >> Of course, you are right, Kelly, when speaking of building >> a single orbital station (or possibly even some tens of them), >> or a single interstellar ship (and unmanned for that - >> you cannot send people for tens of years journey through space without >> prior experience with long-living self-sufficient space habitats). >> However, the really permanent presence of mankind in space >> (including long-duration long-range interstellar travel) >> cannot be assured without building industrial and settlement >> infrastructure in space (meaning outside Earth) as well. >> You better start to think how to build it as fast as possible, >> instead of finding only excuses for postponing it toward some >> "better future". Otherwise, the "better future" never happens... > >This is all going to be tricky, I think. The commercial/industrial-scale >infrastructure will be needed to establish and maintain settlement and >profitability, but nobody will want to pay for it all up front, and I don't >see how >it could become profitable until it's established -- a catch-22 of sorts. >But once >it is established, there will be a market shift; first profits will go >dirtside to >pay the investment, but then the settlement will become its own internal >market, >like a new country, and these profit exchanges will overlap somewhat. > >This brings up a question of law and administration, of course, and who >has rights >to what. That will be a simple matter of contract and treaty _until_ someone >up >there sees that they have the resources to become autonomous; then the >real fun >begins. > >It really looks as if someone's going to have to grab their bootstraps >and give a >good yank . . . Its just like every other colony or city ever founded. It needs to trade with others to survive. It needs to develope trade to even be founded. Thats why about all major cities ae on trade routes. Kelly From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1389" "Saturday" "22" "April" "2000" "21:55:05" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "38" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1389 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3N1tEO13166 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3N1tD413120 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:55:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.45.298805b (14379) for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:55:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <45.298805b.2633b1f9@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: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:55:05 EDT In a message dated 4/21/00 10:58:38 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >Curtis Manges wrote: > >> This is all going to be tricky, I think. The commercial/industrial-scale >> infrastructure will be needed to establish and maintain settlement and >> profitability, but nobody will want to pay for it all up front, and I >don't see > > how >> it could become profitable until it's established -- a catch-22 of sorts. >But once >> it is established, there will be a market shift; first profits will go >dirtside to >> pay the investment, but then the settlement will become its own internal >market, >> like a new country, and these profit exchanges will overlap somewhat. > >Until we get the transportation infrastructure in place none of this >can happen. In some cases the structure is easy to set up, like rail >roads. In the 1800's railroads use coal,and steel. more railroads >more coal and steel you need, to make more coal and steel you use >more trains requiring more umm coal and steel. > >It seems like everybody is develping new rocket motors, but nobody is >using them. >Lets pick a design and get it to work, if Mr Ford waited for the best >car >design we all would still be walking. > >Get it to work, then refine it. The difference is that Ford had a market eager to buy cars. Lots of proposals for low cost lanuchers ae collecting dust for wany of buyers. >Ben. Kelly From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5816" "Saturday" "22" "April" "2000" "21:55:01" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "133" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5816 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3N1tDs13121 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:55:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3N1tC413110 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.b4.45621db (14379) for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:55:02 -0400 (EDT) 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: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:55:01 EDT In a message dated 4/21/00 9:17:50 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: >Geez, let us cut off that silly FTL travel thread... > > >> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 21 05:22:51 2000 >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> In a message dated 4/20/00 8:29:57 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> >> >In a message dated Thursday, April 20, 2000 5:48 PM, KellySt@aol.com >writes: >[...] >> >> >> Chose the best system for the project not the project to promote >> >> your agenda. Dson't think like a advocate. >> >> You couldn't possible mine, smelt, and manufacture most >> >> of what you'ld need - certainly not for less launch mass >> >> then a reasonably sized station. Why do we NEED industry in orbit? > >> >> If the answer is you feel industry in orbit is important, >> >> go to jail, do not collect $200. You need to bepractical >> >> and profitable. Launching the material from earth for initial >> >> projects would be far more cost effective and safe. Most >> >> you couldn't make in space anyway. At least you exercise >> >> the launcher and save some serious bucks. >> > >> >Whose promoting an agenda? >> > >[...] >> >Second, an interplanetary craft might max out at only a few >> >hundred tons, hundreds of times smaller than an interstellar probe. > >> >Add up the launch cost of oh, say a 10,000 ton probe if every >> >piece is lifted to orbit from Earth on Titans and Arianes. >> >What fraction of the PLANETARY Gross Product is that? >> >> If your lifting 10,000 tons you can cut lift costs dramatically. >> Cut costs to 1/100th that of a titan or such and the total >> lift cost would be $2,000,000,000 About the cost of 1 year >> of shuttle launches (under 200 tons possible lift). >[...] >> Now obviously your not going to want to lift millions to hundreds >> of millions of tons for a big starship if you could get it cheaper >> in space. But you wouldn't want to life a thousand ton steel mill >> to make 40 tons of steel. >> >Of course, you are right, Kelly, when speaking of building >a single orbital station (or possibly even some tens of them), >or a single interstellar ship (and unmanned for that - >you cannot send people for tens of years journey through space without > >prior experience with long-living self-sufficient space habitats). >However, the really permanent presence of mankind in space >(including long-duration long-range interstellar travel) >cannot be assured without building industrial and settlement >infrastructure in space (meaning outside Earth) as well. >You better start to think how to build it as fast as possible, >instead of finding only excuses for postponing it toward some >"better future". Otherwise, the "better future" never happens... You have it backwards. Unless the space platforems are needed for something profitable (i.e. returns more value/resources then it consumes) they will never be built, because they will not be part of a better future. Same for the ships - or at least more then a couple token ships. A token fleet won't need the space mining eiather. >> >Third, what do you want to see, a repeat of Apollo? >> >Okay lets spend ten trillion dollars to put a man >> >on the third planet of Alpha Centauri and then go home and quit? >> >Not me. >> > >> >I want to see a thriving orbital industry sending hundreds >> > of ships out to mine asteroids, ferry goods to and from orbital >> >installations, the moon and the planets. Research stations >> >all over the solar system, inhabited stations all over the place. >> >In short lots and LOTS of experienced orbital know how. >> >> Then you don't want the interstellar or any exploration missions, >> you want a earth side market for your space based industry. >> Without that it will all blow away to dust like NASA after Apollo. >> Doesn't mater how much stuff you put up there. >> If its up there for no real general pourpose, It'll be abandoned. >> >Sure, if you assume that any installations in space are eventually >Earth-centered, i.e., their only end purpose is to bring >something useful down here. However, the space infrastructure >Lee is speaking about will be needed in most part for space >operations - not for sustaining Earth people, >but for sustaining people living outside Earth. Sorry, Earth has to pay all the initial bills, and will be suplying the bulk of the technology and industry for a long time. The space colonies and starship projects ae utterly dependant on Earth. Unless they can pay their way, they will be shutdown when earth gets bored just like the Apollo and Russian lunar programs were as soon as their govs got bored with them. Unless you are productive, you are a pet. >> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 21 05:55:56 2000 >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> Subject: Re: starship-design: How to build a station. >> >[...] >> >> Projects ae with current projected reserves, we can meet all >> growing oil needs for 200-300 years. Prices have been going down >> (eratically) for a century, and is likely to keep doing so >> for another century or so. If need be, there is LOTS of oil >> drifting around near earth space. >> >So you see, infrastructure in space will be needed anyway... ;-) Your asuming we'll be burning oil in 300-400 years? ;) >> So if you can cut the launch >> costs of empty frighters enough, you can sell oil from space down >> here. Global warming folks will scream though. ;) >> >One more reason to put the oil-hungry industry in space instead. >You will get an additional benefits: the industry in space >will rather use small amounts of oil to burn. That is, >unless you are ready to ship up lots of oxygen from Earth... ;-)) But the oil hungry homes ae down here. ;) >-- Zenon Kulpa Kelly From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2305" "Saturday" "22" "April" "2000" "21:55:07" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "45" "Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2305 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3N1tNT13197 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:55:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3N1tM413192 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:55:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id z.de.3f7a4dc (14379) for ; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:55:08 -0400 (EDT) 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: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:55:07 EDT In a message dated 4/21/00 12:41:12 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: >> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 21 17:29:04 2000 >> From: Curtis Manges >> >> > Of course, you are right, Kelly, when speaking of building >> > a single orbital station (or possibly even some tens of them), >> > or a single interstellar ship (and unmanned for that - >> > you cannot send people for tens of years journey through space without >> > prior experience with long-living self-sufficient space habitats). >> > However, the really permanent presence of mankind in space >> > (including long-duration long-range interstellar travel) >> > cannot be assured without building industrial and settlement >> > infrastructure in space (meaning outside Earth) as well. >> > You better start to think how to build it as fast as possible, >> > instead of finding only excuses for postponing it toward some >> > "better future". Otherwise, the "better future" never happens... >> >> This is all going to be tricky, I think. The commercial/industrial-scale >> infrastructure will be needed to establish and maintain settlement >> and profitability, but nobody will want to pay for it all up front, >> and I don't see how it could become profitable until it's established >-- >> a catch-22 of sorts. >> >Exactly. It is the biggest problem on the way to make mankind >a truly spacefaring civilization. One possibility seems to be >a happy event of some new space industry popping up - such that >it is profitable up front, as operated from Earth, but at some time >of its development it is found to become even more profitable >when it starts using space resources - enough so to justify >the next big investment in, say, asteroid mining or something. >What kind of an industry it could be? >Nobody knows as for now, I am afraid. Clarke back in the fifties >thought it will be large manned geosynchronous commsats - but it >fizzled, as miniaturization, automation, and reliability of electronics > >made human crews redundant. Currently many look with hope >towards space tourism - but I am not so sure here... What are your concerns about space tourism? Its currently the mostlikely reason to develop major space launch infastructure and orbital facilities? Kelly From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6614" "Sunday" "23" "April" "2000" "09:41:26" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "163" "starship-design: Manufacturing Infrastructure" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6614 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3NEgl404508 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 07:42:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3NEgj404501 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 07:42:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p445.gnt.com [204.49.91.61]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA05184; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 09:42:41 -0500 Message-ID: <000401bfad32$1248e380$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: <98.41dd0db.2633b1f2@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: starship-design: Manufacturing Infrastructure Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 09:41:26 -0500 > -----Original Message----- > From: KellySt@aol.com [mailto:KellySt@aol.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2000 8:55 PM > To: lparker@cacaphony.net; KellySt@aol.com; > starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL travel > > > > In a message dated 4/21/00 9:58:43 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > > >You still missed the point, if you are only building one of > the end product, > >it doesn't matter if you prefab it in sections and boost it > or boost it > >all > >at once. > > Well actually if you launch it in peaces its much more likely > to work right, > and not leak! I wasn't arguing the technical superiority or lack thereof, just the economics of mass production. As a mater of fact, in today's industry, QA is rather much of an after thought instead of an integral part of the manufacturing process. A purpose built unit which is one of a kind and built basically by hand will almost always be superior in quality. However, once the kinks have been worked out of a manufacturing process, the _overall_ quality will be superior to the hand built unit because errors won't be repeated at random. > >However, if you have an industry that is mass producing engines for > >instance, it will be cheaper to use several of those engines > if necessary > >rather than building one special purpose engine to do the same job. > > Probably true, course that assumes your starship can use off > the shelf > engines. True, but let's look at a typical case. Rotary Rocket has a design for a MUCH better engine than any currently existing. However, due to time and budget constraints it made more sense to use the FasTRAC engine developed by NASA, which although better than existing engines, is still not as good as the one envisioned by Rotary Rocket. It is adequate for their needs, available now, and CHEAPER. Most of those cost savings are because the FasTRAC engine is as close as it gets to a mass produced engine. > >It > >will > >be cheaper still if those engines are all being mass > produced in orbit > >from > >materials which are already in orbit rather than boosting ANY of the > >components from Earth. > > Thats a big asumption. No reason to think a space built > peace of equipment > would be cheaper, likely to be more expensive. Smaller > market and far > greater expenses for the space based manufacturing equipment > and personel. Well, since we haven't actually built ANYTHING in orbit, it is kind of hard to issue a blanket statement that it will be cheaper. I was basing that on several economic issues that are known - the cost of lifting raw materials or even not so raw ones out of Earth's gravity well chiefly. I was also assuming that the comparison was being made after the manufacturing facility was built. If we ignore the cost of the infrastructures of both groundside and space-borne facilities for the moment and simply compare the cost of the materials and delivery costs, it is FAR cheaper to obtain the materials in orbit than it is to deliver them to orbit. So much so that some economists are worrying already about what will happen to global market prices for precious metals when asteroid extraction gets into full gear. > >Yes, the infrastructure IS expensive. I stated that right up > front. But > >it > >is also paying it's own way. So the cost is amortized across > other projects > >besides just one interstellar craft. > > Are you sure its paying its way? Unless there are a lot of > projects, you > could be costing more. Read the Commercial Space Transportation Study. It is all laid out and totaled up. Yes it would pay its own way, but even then it still requires that launch costs drop to $100/pound to LEO, and that is just for people and consumables! > I was refuring to reusables, obviously there can't be any > significant cost > savings with expendables! Sorry, but you were unclear...at least we agree! > For those kinds of reductions, you need enough market to keep > fleets of such > vehicals very busy. You are after all talking about reducing > cost to orbit > to costs simlar to trans ocean air frieght. That takes similar sized > markets, or radically improved tech. Some ae on the books, > but you need > massive launch requirements to run them at efficent enough rates. Also pointed out in the Commercial Space Transportation Study. And as Ben and Curtis figured out for themselves, it is a Catch-22 situation. We must have the industry in space to create sufficient demand for launchers to bring the cost down to the $100-$200/pound range, but the cost has to come down to that range first in order to make the industry possible! > > >> Now obviously your not going to want to lift millions to > >> hundreds of millions > >> of tons for a big starship if you could get it cheaper in > >> space. But you > >> wouldn't want to life a thousand ton steel mill to make 40 > >> tons of steel. > > > >Which is why I said LOTS of orbital industry paying it own > way doing other > >things. The steel for the interstellar probe becomes just > one more job, > >not > >THE job. > > Ok, then you need a market large enough to keep those > facilities that busy. Which brings me back to where all of this started, the optimum way to make a starship is in a space-borne shipyard that is making lots of ships with lots of experience in making all those ships, with lots of off-the-shelf components with proven life expectancies, etc. A situation that will only arise when there are several thousand to several hundred thousand people living and working in space to create that much demand in the first place! > Nice list, but it doesn't alter the major problem. What can > you sell to > earth in enough volumn to pay for the operation of the platforms. If I knew the answer to that one, I would be very busy drumming up investors right now! I and lots of other people have studied this for years, and besides the catch already mentioned there are others. At the moment asteroid mining seems to be the only thing with real potential. Tourism is a dirty word to investors and all of the Space Access companies are careful to avoid using it when they talk to potential investors. I can't say I agree, but that seems to be the reality of it. Commercial communications has been the big driving force in launchers so far, but it really doesn't require the kind of presence needed, just launchers. There are lots of possibilities and most are detailed in the Commercial Space Transportation Study. Lee "Space isn't remote at all. It's only an hour's drive away if your car could go straight upwards." - Sir Fred Hoyle From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["980" "Sunday" "23" "April" "2000" "09:46:24" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "32" "RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...]" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 980 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3NEofj06111 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 07:50:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3NEoe406102 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 07:50:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p445.gnt.com [204.49.91.61]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA06435; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 09:50:37 -0500 Message-ID: <000501bfad33$2e4d04c0$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: , Subject: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL travel...] Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 09:46:24 -0500 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of > KellySt@aol.com > Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2000 8:55 PM > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL > travel...] > > > > In a message dated 4/21/00 12:41:12 PM, > zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: > > >> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 21 > 17:29:04 2000 > >> From: Curtis Manges > > What are your concerns about space tourism? Its currently > the mostlikely > reason to develop major space launch infastructure and > orbital facilities? We don't have any concerns - it is the investors who have the concerns. The companies developing the low cost reusable launchers avoid even mentioning that word in front of potential investors. Beats me, I think you are right and that tourism will be one of the biggest markets. Lee From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3986" "Sunday" "23" "April" "2000" "10:55:37" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "92" "RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space " "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3986 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e3NFv0j15909 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 08:57:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from traffic.gnt.net (root@gnt.com [204.49.53.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e3NFux415903 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 08:56:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broadsword (p477.gnt.com [204.49.91.93]) by traffic.gnt.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA15494; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 10:56:42 -0500 Message-ID: <000c01bfad3c$694efb10$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: , Subject: RE: starship-design: Infrastructure in space Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 10:55:37 -0500 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of > KellySt@aol.com > Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2000 8:55 PM > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: Infrastructure in space [was: FTL > travel...] > > In a message dated 4/21/00 9:17:50 AM, > zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl writes: > > >Geez, let us cut off that silly FTL travel thread... Hereby renamed... > >Of course, you are right, Kelly, when speaking of building > >a single orbital station (or possibly even some tens of them), > >or a single interstellar ship (and unmanned for that - > >you cannot send people for tens of years journey through > space without > >prior experience with long-living self-sufficient space habitats). > >However, the really permanent presence of mankind in space > >(including long-duration long-range interstellar travel) > >cannot be assured without building industrial and settlement > >infrastructure in space (meaning outside Earth) as well. > >You better start to think how to build it as fast as possible, > >instead of finding only excuses for postponing it toward some > >"better future". Otherwise, the "better future" never happens... > > You have it backwards. Unless the space platforems are > needed for something > profitable (i.e. returns more value/resources then it > consumes) they will > never be built, because they will not be part of a better > future. Same for > the ships - or at least more then a couple token ships. A > token fleet won't > need the space mining eiather. No, not backwards, just interdependent. It's a Catch-22 situation. > >Sure, if you assume that any installations in space are eventually > >Earth-centered, i.e., their only end purpose is to bring > >something useful down here. However, the space infrastructure > >Lee is speaking about will be needed in most part for space > >operations - not for sustaining Earth people, > >but for sustaining people living outside Earth. > > Sorry, Earth has to pay all the initial bills, and will be > suplying the bulk > of the technology and industry for a long time. The space > colonies and > starship projects ae utterly dependant on Earth. Unless they > can pay their > way, they will be shutdown when earth gets bored just like > the Apollo and > Russian lunar programs were as soon as their govs got bored > with them. > Unless you are productive, you are a pet. That wasn't what Zenon said. He said "if you assume that any installations in space are _eventually_ Earth-centered, i.e., their only end purpose is to bring something useful down here", your argument was about INITIALLY being Earth centered, which we would all stipulate without contest. I think it is fairly evident that the whole point of being there initially would be Earth-centric, but I think it is equally evident that as the off-Earth presence of people increases, more and more off-Earth market will develop. It really doesn't matter which it is or even in what proportion, as long as there is _enough_ industry of the right kinds to make building a starship economical and practical. We have already discussed the other point here several times. It is most unlikely that the first ships to go out will be anything _but_ government funded, for the same reasons. Until we get there and find out what is there, there will be no economic reason to drive a private mission to or presence at another star. > >> Projects ae with current projected reserves, we can meet all > >> growing oil needs for 200-300 years. Prices have been going down > >> (eratically) for a century, and is likely to keep doing so > >> for another century or so. If need be, there is LOTS of oil > >> drifting around near earth space. > >> > >So you see, infrastructure in space will be needed anyway... ;-) > > Your asuming we'll be burning oil in 300-400 years? ;) I doubt that also, but stranger things have happened. Lee From VM Mon Apr 24 10:08:20 2000 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6449" "Sunday" "23" "April" "2000" "11:17:50" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "118" "starship-design: Space infrastructure" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6449 Return-Path: