[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Engineering Newsletter
Kevin wishes to interrupt:
> Timothy replies to Kelly:
>
> >Oh, I still say there is no significant difference between a suicide flight,
> >and a flight where the crew are abandoned with enough supplies to last them
> >their life. I am frankly shocked that you and Tim could seriously suggest
> >such a horrific and ruthless option. Thats like sending a team to antartica,
> >on a one way trip to the pole with no resuply and recovery runs! "Hey guys,
> >go there, explore, radio back what you find, and here's 50 years supplies and
> >parts for you to live out you life with."
>
> Summarizing what I write in this letter:
> - We have to discuss what is necessary for a small colony.
> - You can't compare Antarctica with a new planet full of life.
> - We (or I) don't see it as dropping people without any regard, but as a well
> organized lifetime adventure.
> - Do things break down or get lost faster than one can repair or replace them?
Okay, Okay, I think we've all heard enough of this argument. Neither of
you is going to change the other's mind. If all we can do is figure out
how to send a one-way mission, then I think we can assume that it will
never be used until someone comes up with a valid reason to send so many
people off on a no-return mission. What's a good reason? Why, one that
would attract enough qualified (intelectually and psychologically)
volunteers of course. I think we all agree that it would be a good
_idea_ to have a return flight, The question, is whether it is possible
or not. i think it is, A one-way mission would only be sent in the
direst of planetary emergencies (sun going nova, hostile aliens etc.)
<as an aside, if we knew the sun was going nova, could we use that to
boost colony (ship/worlds) to other systems?>
> >What electric cars are now, is exotic impractical and dangerous (and oddly
> >not particularly clean). Fusion fuel can be mined and stored fairly easily.
> > Anti-mater is a nightmare to hold in quantity, and in our case difficult to
> >use efficently. Again certainly beyond the tech of 2050.
>
> Yes, but so is 1E18 Watt during a few years. (You would create the same
> energy in a day as the Sun would in a second)
Impractical and expensive, yes, but there are no tech dificulties. you
would not be "creating" the energy, but only re-directing a tiny fraction
of the sun's output. I would say it thusly "you would be using 1/3600 of
the suns total output for a period of 2 years" After that, the energy
could be used right here in Sol System for any other project that was
desired.
> OK, enough about anti-matter, I hope I've made clear what the advantages are
> if we can use this techniques savely. I accept that 2050 will not be ready
> for anti-matter but I also have strong doubts if any technique can handle
> the high power we need. What I expect to happen in the futere is that
> anti-matter will find its way at the same time that such enormous power
> finds it way.
>
As to anti-matter and large energy requirements -- I think it would be
far more useful to figure out how we can send the most mass for the least
energy. Tim, if you want to postulate anti-matter, go ahead. give some
rough idea of how you intend to make it and store it, and then let us
argue about when we might expect it. I for one, will postulate beamed
energy, and once I have a workable system, I will go about estimating the
size and manufacturing time of the requesite array. same with Kelly's
design, come up with a viable method of stopping and tell us how long it
would take to come up with the tech. (or lhow long it will take to
pre-load the decell track) Then when we have several methods,
we can rank them according to speed of travel, tech level, and other
factors, to come up with a viable method.
Tim, i have a question for you regarding anti-matter, how do you intend
to direct the "exhaust"? as I see it, anti-hydrogen would combine with
normal hydrogen (scooped?) and this would result in a burst of Gamma rays
in _all_ directions. how will you harness the momentum of these photons?
assuming you can make and store the anti-hydrogen, how many Kg of
anti-matter would you need to get to the target star? do we carry the
return trip fuel with us? or try to make it from the target? if we are
going to make it, what percentage of energy can be turned into
anti-matter? (and you can't assum 100% eff. either, or then I can assume
100% eff. solar arrays and microwave converters ;) ) and where does the
energy come from if you intend to make it?
(one idea for storage of anti-matter, start with anti-hydrogen,made from
slamming high-speed protons into a stationary target, and use fusion to work
your way up to anti-iron does anti-matter give energy when it fuses
with anti matter? i think it must. when you have a quantity of anti-iron,
magnetize it and your storage problems are solved. many of these
technologies probably won't be avail until 2250 AD :( )
>
> I'm not sure I know what Kansas is like, but surely if they had some
> habitation-modules from the year 2050 they could prosper.
> The modules have a self sustained climate, their only input is energy (from
> a small anti-matter-tank :) or just plain old solar-panels). Not only its
> climate is self-sustained but also vegetables and other food would would be
> grown. So now that you have your first-aid life support for one or two
> persons in say 300 cubic metres, you want something to do. OK in Kansas you
> probably could do nothing at all, but on TC you might want to get out. So
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I thought you said you didn't know what Kansas was like. ;)
(for information, it is totally flat, totally farming, and totally boring)
<big snip, different subject>
> That may indeed be the case, but a 10 year exploration with 100 people is
> hardly enough to do any real research of a complete solarsystem. Not to
> mention refueling or building complete beaming-arrays (only advanced
> nano-tech or anti-matter might overcome that problem).
>
One of the implicit assumptions I'm going to use is that some form of
self-replicating machinery is possible. not nano-tech, and not
self-directed either. I'm assuming that a robot can be made that can
make a copy of itself given: premade circuit board (pentium level
motherboard with cameras and wireless modems) and ready made ores. that is,
some other machine refines the ores and gives our robot "ingots" of
aluminum or silicon or whatever else it needs.
The robot needs to do the following autonomuos tasks:
1) shape metal into any shape (most NC millers can do this today)
2) make a 1 meter by 1 meter solar cell from a solid ingot of silicon and
proper doping materials (they work in vacumn, so much bulky equipment
won't be needed
3) scoop or mine ore and bring it to a central location
4) wind motors, connect wires and other tasks required to make a copy of
itself (note, while theoretically, one robot could make a copy of itself,
in pactice, many would be assigned the task of turning out more robots
A Semi-autonomous computer would direct all the robots, while humans would
be available for debugging, and initial set-up.
an ore processing machine will be required as well as constant oversight
by one or more crew.
these would then be able to first, turn out many copies of themselves,
and then secondly, they could begin turning out the hectares of solar
panels needed for the maser transmitters. the same system would work in
Sol, as would work in TC
This would solve the problem of super-large collecting arrays, by
allowing geometric growth of the machinery needed to manufacture it.
Kevin
who _makes_ glass beads, but doesn't brag about it in off topic groups ;)
just kidding Ric.