[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: Summary
> To Kelly,
> >I wasn't assuming we would be using a propulsion beam, much less build one
> >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?
Next part? I list all of them in the summary, but don't assume any of them
will be used. My designs only use fusion drives and fuel launchers.
> >SETI wasn't expecting to download the output of a couple hundred
> >and all there raw data. I know bandwidth is a problem on the hubble and
> >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
> of a strong satellite in an orbit beyond the TC-analog of Pluto.
Possibly, but if we have a hard time even seeing a planet, what luck will we
have trying to see and decript a signal?
> >> 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
> >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?
Rockets have to be light and high powered. For this system the pumps would
be closer to city water pumps than rocket turbo pumps. The accelerator would
provide the high speed boost, but none of it would move.
> 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
I'm not clear on the requirment for the launcher. Hopefully it won't need to
be that long. I don't think we'ld need speed that high because then the ship
would get to far away from the launcher before it got that fast. I think
beam presision is the main limitation, but I haven't work on it.
> To make an anology, could a nuclear reactor work without anyone present,
> half a year? (Limited remote control could be allowed)
Some reators do run for years without direct control. (Some like three mile
Island ran much better that way ;) ) The big commercial plants need
operating, but thats mainly to adjust for power loads. Soviet subs are
fairly automated as I remember. And of course the computer power avalible
will be a lot more.
Of course if they can't be automated, the ship can't go.
> Besides all this, building such an accelerator is pretty high tech. And you
> are constantly saying that that isn't possible.
Accelerators arn't that high tech. At least not if you arn't interested in
super high speeds and partical level interactions. Its basically an
> >> star-system within a small period. If they wanted they could take a few
> >> generations. They would be excellent objective observers since they
> >> wouldn't
> >> know very well what Earth was like. Flying aircrafts perfectly isn't
> >> necessary, as long as the flight and landing is reasonable smooth that
> >> enough.
> >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
> >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
> 90% is close enough.
The pilots disagree. They can't simulate G fources well at all, and can
sometimes give pilots the wrong reflexes in G manuvers. They are excelent
for exersizing a pilot in certain things. Bad in others.
> >> 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.
Same in the ship. Besides, how do you repair the crew when they wear out?
> >Not if they liked the program. Media generally don't ask many hard
> >of things they agree with. Look at how little media investigation there
> >been on global warming and greenhouse theories. They are every bit as
> >to investigate, yet that seldom is done. Certainly my experience at NASA
> >confirms that.
> Media also like to tackle plans that seem to look OK. Besides why wouldn't
> they like the idea to build a colony there.
A colony with no purpose and tremendous expence? Which locks us into
frequent perminent suply runs? Which condems its occupants to dramatically
shortend lives of hardship? I think they might find more than a few reasons
if they want to.
>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.
Hibernation seems to get talked about with harly a wisper of concern in a lot
of groups. Frankly I can't understand why.
> >I was thinking the pumps and fuel processors, and high energy power
> >wouldn't weigh as much as the propulsion dishes, tanks, and reinforcing
> >structure. Those heavy parts would be easier to rebuild in systems from
> >local ores.
> 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.
Not really, they are just big structural elements. That should be pretty
easy to build from local supplies.
> >> It's the use of fusion-fuel that causes this, staging is a result of
> >> 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... :)
Unles we come up with matter conversion or warp drives, I think thats about