Re: Orbit B

[KellySt@aol.com]

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