[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Orbit B
re Kevin C Houston
> Kelly:
> > Anyway for the system to work the beam reflectors would need to hold
place
> > for years. Which orbital mechanics wouldn't allow.
> >
> > The problem of the beam push on the other hand is critical, and I'm
surprised
> > I didn't think of this (maybe this cold is worse than I think?). The
> > reflectors would be boosting at 10 m/s/s from the beam. FGorget about
orbits.
> > You won't even say in the star system!
> >
> Which is why i proposed building the tmaser array on a small > innersystem
> planet. (like mercury)
Kind of useless for a reflector. And as a transmitter the beam would be
moving side to side and couldn't keep to a fixed vector.
>
> > Follwing the beam might be possible if the angular change was minimal.
But
> > given the high speeds and accelerations involved I'm suspicious.
> but of ourse the angular change would be very minimal if you are talking
> about a circle the size of mecury's orbit and a length of twelve light
years
> so actually, the best orbit for the maser array is the closest one you
> can get.
Your still talking about a lateral drift of an orbit diameter. I guess
angular change is a no show since the beam couldn't aim toward the ship. It
would need to aim fixed vector and the ship chases it around. If it slips
off. You die.
Kelly
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Orbit B
- From: Kevin C Houston <hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu>