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

Re: Re: Summary A

To Timothy van der Linden

(I trimed things a bit.)

> What I didn't think of the last time, is that it [fuel launcher] 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?).

Fourtunately it would have a fixed aim toward Sol.  Unfortunately everything
in the solar system tumbles.  So I expect we'll have to move a big mas to a
usable orbut and then stablize it (and possibly gyro stablize part of it).
 The launchers could be mounted on that and the fuel processors and storage
reserved set up on it.  (You prep the fuel before you leave, and leave enough
extra for the next ship in.)

> >I'm not clear on the requirment for the launcher.  Hopefully it won't need
> >be that long.  I don't think we'ld need speed that high because then the
> >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.

You need a 100 km coil to aim 1/4 light year or less?

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

I consider the community will have more complex and less relyable stuff to
repair.  Electromagnetic launchers are about as simple as we'll get.

> >> Besides all this, building such an accelerator is pretty high tech. And
> >> are constantly saying that that isn't possible.
> >Accelerators arn't that high tech.  At least not if you arn't interested
> >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.

Then package every E18th set of particals into a fuel packet canister.


> 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.----

Thats a little involved. I'm not sure if it would work.  Certainly ground ops
training is out, but that might get you trained enough to operate the

> >> >> 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
> >> >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).

The ship would have identical machinery (it would have to carry it eiather
way), I'm not really sure of the extra ore would make a big difference.   

> >>Almost (or completely) freezing
> >> people to revive them gives a nasty taste to many people. All this
> >> 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
> >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?

Starngly I've never heard much public upset at the idea.


> >> Yes, but aren't these high-tech parts? Does an airplane have any
> >> parts (except the chairs)? All these parts have high specifications,
> >> 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.

There are not that hard to build compared to the high tech parts.