Re: Re: Summary A

[KellySt@aol.com]

To Timothy van der Linden

> >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.)

> As said before, even if the launcher is 100 metres in 
> length it still may be difficult. The best thing we could 
> do is search for a big asteroid which has no own-rotation
> and is in a far orbit from it's sun (and thus moves not 
> much during a few months).

Everything in fre space tumbles at various speeds and directions.

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

> Lets see:

> d=the diametre of the accelerator tube
> l=length of the accelerator

> maximum angle of deviation: Tan(theta)=d/l -----

Ah, I see your mistake.  The angular deflection isn't based on the physical
dimentions of the launcher, but on the accuracy and precision of the lateral
correction trim thrusting, and deviation sensors.  

You measure the course of the accelerating packet with lasers and use lateral
magnetic or electrostatic fields to adjust the direction.  (Its easier if you
do this after it leaves the end of the accelerator.)  This way the final aim
presision is not related to the size of the launcher.

> >> 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.

> That's like extending a rifle to shoot an big asteroid 
> instead of a bullet (that's only 1E10). I'm not pointing 
> to the extra energy needed, but just to the fact that 
> things cannot be enlarged without changing completely.

Tru the launcher would be more like an electromag cannon then a partical
accelerator (and I really wish I had some numbers on the power a mag launcher
takes) but that doesn't mean the system would scale up linearly with the size
of the load.


> >>>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.   

> I was assuming they could extend=build new tools when 
> they arrived (eg. large, low-tech equipment like 
> steel-rollers)

I was assuming the low tech heavy stuff (like structure) would hold together
longer than the lighter deatiled stuff (like IC chips and life support
systems).

> >> 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.

> I think that is because so far no one has been recovered 
> after being freezed in, most people think that it is 
> impossible to revive a person either because of religious
>  and/or technical reasons.
> Of course there may be other methods of hibernation that 
> are less drastic, although probably all methods mean that
>  people should be in a deep coma. I wonder if the media 
> likes the idea of killing people just so far that they
> are continiously on the stairway to heaven.

Oddly, I think most people assume hibernation is trivial.  Lots of animals
hybernate for months at a time and stop their motabalism.  People have talked
about puting crews in hybernation for long trips for so long that its taken
for granted by people.

=============================================================================

> >>>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.

> OK, I see that. But is it that difficult to extend the 
> equipment from making bolts with a precision of 1/1000 
> mm to making a micro chip?

Well there is, but more importantly you wouldn't ever make a bolt that
precise for structural or heavy systems use.

Kelly