Re: Re: Summary

[KellySt@aol.com]

On Wed, 14 Feb 1996 KellySt@aol.com wrote:

> Tim wrote:

> 
> > 
> > >> 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
> > >that.
> > 
> > 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.

so one of the questions we have to answer, is whether we should leave the 
launcher in the target system, or take it with us and add the complexity 
of an maser array.  if we take it with us, we can keep it maintained, if 
we leave it behind,  we might save some energy.

> > 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
> > anyway)
> 
> 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.

] Tim, why not have a torroidal accelerator with a straight aiming track?  
] The particles could go around the track many times before 
] being thrown out into space.  That would make it a smaller device

> > 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
> it.



] Okay, So i see three  semi-respectable drive systems.  
] each of which needs some more work to be productive, 
] each of which requires some technology that we don't 
] have yet, or we can't agree when we might have.

1) The fusion RAIR: 

Pros: we are closer to fusion than to the next two ideas.  Fairly low energy.
would have military applications (i.e. the government would fund it) 
moderate heat load/low rad loaad depending on fuel cycle

Cons (basic to the design, for which no reasonable tech solution exits)
Slower.  even if it gets up to .75 C, will add many years to a flight. 
and the design only calls for .5 C.  requires many hundred tons of 
relatively rare atoms ( i.e. Li, He, Be,) Or a better Fusion pathway that 
uses Hydrogen.  

Tech Limitations:  a "Fuel Launcher" (whatever that is) capable of 
keeping a tight beam of fusion fuel pellets (or gas) on course for .5 to 
1 Light-years.  Must be re-built in target sytem. Must be automated.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Good summary, but what do you mean Military applications?  What the hell
would the military do with big fixed Electromagnetic cannon?  Its just a
scaled up version of what they are building now!

] 2) the MARS: (SOL > {maser sail} > mid-way point > {Lineac drive} > TC)

] maser sail needed for return is easier to repair than fuel 
] launcher.

But is the maser array easier to repair then a fuel launcher?

] 3) Anti-matter.

] Okay, did I miss anything?

] Here's my suggestion: since each design has some technical
] limitation on it, let's assume we can solve that problem.


] Kelly gets a fuel launcher, he only has to tell us how 
] far/fast/much it needs to shoot in order to provide the 
] thrust to his rocket.  he does not need to prove it works, 
] or justify it's abilities as reasonable.  provided the 
] energy costs etc are accounted for.


] Kelly also gets to use the fusion cycle and reactor of 
] his choice 


Ooo, new toys!  ;)


] Kevin gets a maser array capable of aiming +/- 1000 Km / 12 L.Y.

]       (really, could be anything, but I think this is reasonable)
] Kevin also gets self-reproducing robots until he can 
] figure out how to do without them.  Reproduction 
] rate/intelligence level will be discussed later.


] Tim gets the ability to manufacture and store whatever 
] amount of anti-matter is required.  If anti-matter is 
] manufactured in target system, 50% effeiciency is 
] assumed  (make 1 Kg matter for every Kg Antimatter)  
] E=mC^2.  


] These items then become the minimum tech basis for 
] our designs.  They cannot be built until these problems 
] are solved.  Since we cannot possibly solve these 
] particular problems here in this forum, let's just 
] assume them for now, and see where this takes us.  
] I will start working on a MARS addition to my home 
] page. Let's try to refine the design of each of these 
] propulsion systems.

] Kevin Houston

Good idea, these do seem to be the only ideas we're talking about anymore, so
we might as well write them up.  I'm working up a summary list of the drive
system ideas, so as more stuff gets filled in we can update it into the
summary on LIT.  listing the risks assumptions and all that.

Kelly