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

Re: Re: Summary A


>> 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?

To see a planet we need spatial RESOLUTION. To receive a signal we don't
need an exact position. Although you probably can't see the radio
transmitter of your favourite station, you can receive the signal with a
simple omni-directional antenna.

Your arguement is:  TC creates to much radiation along the whole spectrum of
wavelength, so that we cannot out-shout it enough to create a signal that
makes sence to people in another starsystem.

I am not sure if there are no bands that we can use. I think we can find a
way around it so that we don't need to shout. This could be done by one or
more relay stations.
I do agree however, that there may be a problem, but also that we do not
know the exact size of it.


>>>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.

What I didn't think of the last time, is that it should have to aim. For
that it needs some kind of movement. That makes me wonder, how are we going
to move such a big launcher. I'm still not sure if you want to place it in
space or on some massive rock (planet, asteroid?).

>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.

This length is not only needed to accelerate but also to aim accurately.

>> To make an anology, could a nuclear reactor work without anyone present,
>> for 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.

I'm still having doubts, and I am a little amazed that you have so much
convidence in it, since you are finding it so logical that things break down
in a rate too fast to repair by a small community.

>> 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
>electromagnetic cannon.

Yes, but the size of it is much bigger (1E18 times?) than needed for a few
billion atoms per second.
It's not the same as adding simple cannons together, since the particles
will start to interact and desturb the same fields that accelerate them.


>> 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.
>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.

I don't know why I came with this before: They would probably have some
small space cruisers that would be the space equivalent of todays
jet-fighters. In these cruisers they could just blank the window (if it has
one) and fly in a simulated landscape.
So they would have experience in real space and simulated planet flight (and
both having real acceleration).
I read that NASA is doing test-flights with pilots landing and flying in a
plane with no windows, only a computer generated image of the needed
information (IR, radar, visual combined).

>> >> 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.

No, the ship would have much less resources (ores and machinery).

>Besides, how do you repair the crew when they wear out?

Yes, I know, that is the weakest point of the whole "colony"-idea.

>> 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.

I think that for any flight in the next century there will be lots of
reasons not to go.

>>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 don't understand what you mean: Do you see any public problems with
hibernation itself or not?


>> 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.

Is that true? I always thought that it needed special bolts an nuts etc.