[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RE: Engineering Newsletter

Sunsite didn't have a good backup since OCTOBER!!  I'm glad were not paying
them, at least were getting our moneys worth out of them.

Dave, whats  ArchaeoSETI?

RE: Timothy replies to Kelly
> > >>After rethinking it, I see what you mean.
> > >>The only thing I'm not sure about is what the physics of plasma
> > >>are. We may reflect radio-waves to the ionosphere everyday but how does
> > >>work? And does it work in the Asimov also?
> >
> >It would certainly involve a much larger scale, and I don't know what the
> >reflection efficency is.  Or how much mass would need to be ionized to
> >up the reflection. One thing for certain, the stuff will be HOT!
> I think it is that HOT thing that worries me, it may well be that that 
> will screw up your whole nice reflection.

Hot would be good for the reflection.  It would meen it was more ionized.
 Also it would be more presure for drive purposes.  Might be a little hard on
the hull thou.  ;)

> >That would be true if all major areas of research were being investigated
> >resonably well funded.  But most areas of fusion research that I know of
> >no funding.  Magnetic plasma fusion is geting funded, but at least in the
> >the systems are dead ends.  Even if they worked they'ld be useless (to
> >to be intergrated into the power grid.).  Where as more inovative designs
> >that are considered more promising (like Bussards among others) are geting
> >funding.
> You can't assume that more money is used for this, because I could assume
> that more money is used for research for anti-matter containment and
> creation. Both fusion and anti-matter are areas where little is known

I wasn't refering to LIT assumptions, only real world.  But, if we are to
assume a large scale space infastructure.  I guess we can assume it was worth
there while to develope fusion systems.

> >Oh yeah, the single stage to orbit program (SSTO).  My excorperation, and
> >NASA department I used to work at in NASA headquarters were working on
> >program.  Increadable potential. It could cut costs to orbit by a factor
> >100!  Fed Ex is even rumored to be seriously interested in using them for
> >suborbital intercontenental mail carriers.
> E-mail is cheaper and faster :)

A but its so hard to E-mail a xmas present!  ;)

> >I'ld debate that.  Since your stuck in an artificial habitat anyway, one
> >space has easy access to all the floating ores and raw materials in the
> >system.  Much of which would be hard to get at on a planet (ever see a
> >mine) and much harder to transport.  I'm a firm beleaver that heavy
> >will largely move off earth in a century or two.  If your already off
> >and in a starship, trying to set up on a planet would be hellish.
> Hmm, yeps, you may well be right. But the place where people want to live
> will be on a nice planet.

Hey, if they want a nice planet their going to be out of luck on out flight.
 We'll only be ofering dead, or plague worlds.

> Doing research on a planet or building industries is still much more
> interesting than flying back to Earth. And if it isn't more intersting,
> research will gives more fruits for the money than flying back would do.

Building industries?  I don't follow.  Research I can understand, but
obviously they can't do that forever.  Nor do I expect to settle for living
out the rest of their lives in the hab deck.

> >People won't see it right away, but they will know people are out there.  
> > I think that would be enough to get public interest.  I know public
interest in
> >robot probes is near nill.  As NASA constantly found.  Robots were thought
> >as scout craft for maned expiditions.  If no manned folowups were planed
> >frequently mentioned) public interest in funding the robots droped way
> > Generally a so what atitude.  Drove the Robot probe teams CRAZY!
> I think that the mission will not be funded by governments but by
> firms. They would use it as advertisement and gain of new technology. Such
> project will not be done by one country, but by all developped countries.
> the competition between countries would not be the same as they were in
> times. So public interest should have a completely other background: love
> for the unknown. Ordinary people probably are more concerned about other

I can't see corporations droping probably hundreds of billions of dollars on
a project like this.  It absolutly would have no short term benifit (decades
at least) and advertizing would supply this kind of money.

International projects ARE A DISSASTER!!  I was in the International Space
Station Freedom Program, and can assure you it convinced about everybody that
international cost everyone far more, slowed the program WAY down, and
generally made it impossible.  If a project like this requirers international
particip[ation, it will be a write off.

> > >>So where to and when is our new goal? Until now only fusion may bring 
> > >>us out of the solar system within reasonable time. Even if you use a 
> > >>beam, the fusion is necessary to maintain the beam.
> >
> >Well you could power the beam with big solar electric power platforms in
> >space.  (The kind of stuff the L-5 socyety kept proposing to power earth.)
> No, Earth's consumption of electricity is much much less than that of the
> Asimov. As I showed before you would need an array bigger than the moon!
> than you only have the energy but not the beam. For that you need again an
> enormous array of high power masers.

I don't remember you mentioning that.  In any event its the cost not the size
that would make a difference.
> >I would definatly prefer a dead world as a possible colony site over a
> >one like earth.  Wouldn't be as interesting to study, but much more
> >survivable.  The problem is any world that could support us, probably has
> >life.
> So how do we solve that? Walking in spacesuits all day isn't that much fun.

Exploration is seldom a lot of fun.  I can't think of anyway to solve the
biohazard problem other than space suits, or staying in the ship and using
tele-operated robots.

> >Hell, we're still trying to find cures for all the plagues on earth.  So
> >our best luck seem to be in destroying the worst sections of the ecology
> >(draining wetlands, fogging everything with pestasides, etc..) and
> >urban semi-ecologies.  Most of the habited areas of the developed world
> >(europe, North America, etc..)  do this so routinely we don't even notice
> >anymore.  But then living in a coutry thats largly under sea level I
> >have to tell you.  ;)
> The place I live is save, even if all the polar ice melts away. :) (33
> metres above sealevel)
> What you write may be true, but is not complete, we have found cures for
> many diseases and our understanding gets better all the time. In 50 years
> this will only be better and more advanced.

True, but its taken us centuries to get this far in our medical skills.  We
won't have centuries, or even decades, to learn how to fight the alien

> >ReplyTo   : Ric
> >>We are going to have to establish a solarsystem based society before 
> >>we would be able to convince anyone of the need to go anywhere else.
> >
> >So if we want to continue the SD project we should make it 2140 instead of
> 2040.
> Very possibly

If we shove the calendar to 2140 from 2050, we'ld have nothing to base it on.
 We would have to debate what type of physics, much less engineering we could

Oh, what did.. whoever said it (I never got the origional message) mean by:

> >>We are going to have to establish a solarsystem based society before 
> >>we would be able to convince anyone of the need to go anywhere else.

We obviously arn't going to NEED to go to another star system, and certainly
we've never come up with a reason anyone would want to stay in this other
starsystem.  (Trade obviously isn't practical with the technology we're
discusing.)  But that doesn't meen people wouldn't be interested in finding
out what is there.


I suppose I'ld kick in $20 for the cause if it would help.