[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: Summary
>I wasn't assuming we would be using a propulsion beam, much less build one in
>the target systems. You've pretty wel convinced me that, that isn't
Oh yes, it was Kevin who wants to use it. But you do use it in the next
part, or is that only for a relative short acceleration period?
>SETI wasn't expecting to download the output of a couple hundred researchers
>and all there raw data. I know bandwidth is a problem on the hubble and the
>other remote platforms (they use data filtering to skim out the desired
>parts, and everyone prays they selected the right parts) so I assume the
>problem would also exist for a starship.
OK, could a satellite in a far orbit around TC be a possibility to overcome
the interferring radiation of TC? If we can distinguish big planets from
their Sun many lightyears away, I think we can also distinguish some signals
of a strong satellite in an orbit beyond the TC-analog of Pluto.
>> Could we really trust such a big machinery to keep on working for
>> several months (if not a year)?
>Sure, we have a lot of big mechanical systems experience and the launcher is
>very simple and has very few moving parts. The complex part would be the
>minning and construction parts, and the crews will be around to supervise
It may have few moving parts, but so does a rocket engine. How many rocket
engines will be able to work continously for half a year?
I imagine such a launcher as an electromagnetic pipeline say 100 km in
length and 10 cm in diameter. This is about 10 times as long as the
accelerator at CERN. It's diameter is probably many times more. I think we
won't reach much more than .5c because at CERN it takes several 1000 turns
to get the particles to move that fast. I'm not sure if we need a vacuum
assuming we use something like our moon to build the launcher on. But if we
do, it means a lot of moving objects (I'm not sure though how high-vacuum
pumps do work).
On the other hand there is a lot of electronics involved to control al the
machinery. Can we be sure that there won't be a fuse that burns through? (I
assume there won't be any fuses, since they aren't allowed to burn through
To make an anology, could a nuclear reactor work without anyone present, for
half a year? (Limited remote control could be allowed)
Besides all this, building such an accelerator is pretty high tech. And you
are constantly saying that that isn't possible.
>> star-system within a small period. If they wanted they could take a few
>> generations. They would be excellent objective observers since they
>> know very well what Earth was like. Flying aircrafts perfectly isn't
>> necessary, as long as the flight and landing is reasonable smooth that is
>Thats like giving a navy TomCat fighter and mission to someone whos never
>been out of doors, much less in and aircraft, but has played the sim game a
>lot. (The landings should be especiaslly --- colorfull.)
What I've seen from these simulations, is that they can be quite realistic.
g-forces, ever more perfect visual environments. A few weaks ago I saw that
there where special simulations for landings on a flightdeck (talk about
difficult landings). Maybe the simulations aren't 100% real but I think that
90% is close enough.
>> space colony. And why should a space colony be so significantly more
>> dangerous than a 5 year flight in space?
>Because a space colony is a 50-100 year flight through space. Same life
>support needs and risks, just for 10-20 times longer, and with and
>increasingly old and wornout crew and ship.
Yes, but you would be able to repair or rebuild things.
>Not if they liked the program. Media generally don't ask many hard questions
>of things they agree with. Look at how little media investigation there has
>been on global warming and greenhouse theories. They are every bit as easy
>to investigate, yet that seldom is done. Certainly my experience at NASA
Media also like to tackle plans that seem to look OK. Besides why wouldn't
they like the idea to build a colony there. Almost (or completely) freezing
people to revive them gives a nasty taste to many people. All this assumes
that one can hibernate which seems to me just as possible as
anti-matter-engines to you.
>I was thinking the pumps and fuel processors, and high energy power systejms
>wouldn't weigh as much as the propulsion dishes, tanks, and reinforcing
>structure. Those heavy parts would be easier to rebuild in systems from
Yes, but aren't these high-tech parts? Does an airplane have any low-tech
parts (except the chairs)? All these parts have high specifications, also
the construction needs to be perfect.
>> It's the use of fusion-fuel that causes this, staging is a result of using
>> fusion fuel. (Just a minor difference)
>Or any fuel without a much higher power to weight ratio.
Do you have a better idea, that I don't know of... :)