[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*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: New idea Laser launcher/scoop systems*From*: T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl (Timothy van der Linden)*Date*: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 08:55:49 +0100

Lee wrote, >>Although, I don't know what this program or the equation looks like, I've >>serious doubts if they are right. This is because the numbers don't line up >>with my own and with Steve's calculations. (2 to 1) >> >I checked his equation source and it is the right equation for non >relativistic flight, I have the version for relativistic flight if you want >it. Actually his numbers don't look to far off. Because of the extremely >high specific impulses he listed, the mass ration is very low. I already see what makes the difference (besides the fact that formula doesn't take into account what the energy:mass ratio of the fuel is). For slightly different exhaust speeds (around 0.08c) the ratios are optimal. I must have overlooked that in Kellies table, where at the top this speed of 25M is used. I don't understand however why all the other numbers are shown in the table. >However, I would like to know where his choices of Specific Impulse I(sp) >came from they look a little outrageous. I can tell you (and show you, but would not recommend) that for a final velocity of 100,000,000 m/s an exhaust speed of 24,500,000 m/s is optimal (assuming a mass:energy ratio of 300) The initial:final weight ratio is 70:1 in that case. (All these numbers are rather critical!) Timothy

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Another piece of the puzzle?** - Next by Date:
**Re: Sail Questions** - Prev by thread:
**Re: New idea Laser launcher/scoop systems** - Next by thread:
**Re: New idea Laser launcher/scoop systems** - Index(es):