[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Orbit B
- To: KellySt@aol.com, kgstar@most.magec.com, stevev@efn.org, jim@bogie2.bio.purdue.edu, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu, rddesign@wolfenet.com, David@InterWorld.com, lparker@destin.gulfnet.com, bmansur@oc.edu
- Subject: Re: Orbit B
- From: T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl (Timothy van der Linden)
- Date: Sat, 09 Mar 1996 17:15:41 +0100
Kelly,
>> But I planned the retro-mirror would be at about the same size as the
>> earth-array. (Sounds awful doesn't it?)
>
>Doesn't sound possible. You'ld have to get some divergence. You'ld need to
>send a beam much larger than the sail/reflector in order to make sure their
>was an acceptable sized hot zone for the ship to manuver slightly in.
So then indeed the retro-mirror should be 10 times bigger than the
Earth-array (and 100 times bigger than the sail). But is that impossible (A
100 kilometre sail radius).
>> No, the back- and forward beam aren't at the same place,
>> they are at besides each other.
>
>Then the relfector (and ship) would be under lateral thrust that would shove
>it out of the beam, and the reflector work have to aim to hit the ship.
> Since it couldn't know or see the ship to aim, it would presumably miss.
But don't you remember my "2-beams side-to-side" solution (which I reasently
posted again especially for Brian).
>> With the capture and retransmit array (that has to be just
>> about as large as the beam)
>
>How would that help? The beam from earth would be fluttery by the time it
>got to the reflector or retransmitter array. So that would chew up the
>microwave converters of catcher mesh (depending).
Hmm yes, unless you made the collectors and the masers far enough apart
(which is necessary anyway, to overcome that the back- and forward beam
aren't in the same path).
>> >How the hell do you focus a lose flapping mesh sheet, the size of jupiter,
>> >while its taking 100s-1000's-? of G in acceleration?
>
>> I still don't agree with the size of the sail and the beam. The sail should
>> at maximum be 1 kilometre radius and the beam max 100 km radius.
>> And if we can make this thing work, I assume the accuracy could be made
>better too.
>
e18 in a 1Km beam? Kept that tight over interstellar distences? Neat trick.
I don't see why you could keep a 100 km beam accurate enough but not a 1 km
beam. Can't we increase this accuracy 100 times? We never did a study of the
accuracy of the beam, we always assumed some fictional number. I tried
figuring it out but so far no luck.
If 1 km is not enough to make course corrections, I wonder if 100 km is?
>> The mirror would not accelerate any faster than the Asimov, since we are
>> smart enough to add some extra weight (if it isn't heavy from itself).
>
>Thats a lot of waste mass, and it wouldn't effect it flaping.
The idea was to use the mass in a contructive way, thus as support.
Tim