Re: Re: Summary A

[KellySt@aol.com]

to: Timothy van der Linden

> >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.  

> Yes, I was already expecting that something could be the case.

> >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.

> This assumes you can quite accurately steer a packet, 
> but a packet is build up of a lot of small particles all 
> going their own way (of course mainly forwards). ----

Who says?  A fuel packet could be the size of a fright car of that would
help, but I'ld assumed it would be smaller.  More like pill to bear can
sized.  It would almost impossible to spray a charged fog of particals out of
a gun and keep them together.  Their mutual repulsion would cause them to
defuse to much.  You'ld have to pack them in mini-containers.  I supose you
could treat those containers or packets as particals, but I don't think thats
what your thinking of.


> >-- I really wish I had some numbers on the power a mag
> >  launcher takes

> You could calculate the least amount of energy very easely
> if you know the exhaust speed and the amount of mass 
> per second.

If you send the equations along I'll run some numbers through for my summary
documents.

> >>>>>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 wonder if we could change that: make high-tech stuff 
> hold together longer than low-tech stuf. I imagine that 
> in the future this may become true (think of nanosystems).
>  But for todays-technology it may be possible too. When a
> memory chip has one bad bit we throw it away, of course 
> we could make it so that just that bit was never used (or 
> that byte, whatever). --

You could rig up the systems to degrade in capacity not just fail.  But the
more detailed the structures (like the inside of Nanos) the more slight
defects will disrupt the function of the system.  (I'n not optimistic about
Nanos longevity in radiation fields.)

> -- For the structure the same thing applies, it
> will have some backups before a life threathening 
> situation will occur.

They alway design them that way, but for things that need high performance
per dry weight (like high speed craft) that gets to be a problem quickly.

> The only problem is that higher-tech (not highest-tech) 
> has only few redundancies because that isn't efficient 
> in our society.  About highest tech, we won't be using 
> that much, since it is inherently dangerous to use systems
>  that haven't proven their workings enough.

Redundancies start to drastically degrade the performance of some systems
(like I.C. chips), and we may (or may not) need all the performance we can
get for a starship.

> >> 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.

> Yes, but most people also think that walking without 
> spacesuit on another "green" planet is without dangers.

Agreed.

> I hope that you are not suggesting that the sci-fi 
> movies determine what the public will find acceptable 
> or not.

Unfortunatly it will.  SF is as close as most people bother to get to
science, and the SF movies and books reflect or display the publics
assumptions.  

An example is the move Blade Runner, which was set in an L.A. slumb of the
mid 21st century.  The producer filled it with stuff from 1940 detective
novels and high tech exotica.  Yet everyone assumed it was a serious
projection of the future. Even critisizing him for the ending where the
characters drove out of L.A. to a green and beutify countryside.  Which they
thought couldn't exist or people wouldn't live in the slumbs.  He pointed out
thats how it is now, where an hour or two drive separtes the worst poluted
slumbs from the green and sparsly populated countryside.  

Anyway, in a political arena peoples techno prejidices will effect the
projects and the protest to them.  Every analysis of nuclear powe shows its
not capable of poluting as mouch as the coal plants it would replace.  Yet
nukes get intense public and governmental polution and safty attention, coal
little.

> Are you also thinking that hibernation is more or less 
> trivial? 

No, just that I beleave the public thinks it is.  But in politics reality is
unimportant, impressions are everything.

Kelly