[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: OK, here the right calculus (I hope)
- To: KellySt@aol.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, David@InterWorld.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, DotarSojat@aol.com
- Subject: Re: OK, here the right calculus (I hope)
- From: T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl (Timothy van der Linden)
- Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 23:26:05 +0100
>So you're saying that a Maser Augmented Rocket System (MARS) _will_
>work? do I have that correct. That we can use maser sail to accelerate
>at 1G constant, then convert the Microwave energy to elec. to accelerate
>Reaction Mass (RM) to about .803 C and we will need 52 times the ships
>dry mass for RM.
>Celebratory cheers pending confirmation.
Well, eh, I think so. At least I believe it, although there is something in
the back of my head that says that a long time ago someone (was it me, I
really don't know?) said that it wasn't possible.
So I will check a few things and let you know.
>> Note that the power of the maser-beam is NOT constant, it is supposed that
>> it decreases while the ship gets lighter (because it repulses mass).
>If it's not too much trouble, can you figure this for a constant maser beam
>How much extra RM will we need?
Well, that needs a different approach, I'll see what I can do and let you
know. If you haven't heard me about it in a week, give me a yell.
>A decreasing maser beam is possible, it's only a time delay calculation,
>but a constant beam would solve some engineering problems
Wow did I just find a minimum, now I'm asked to find a worse minimum because
it works too well. Those damn engineers never know what they want... ;)
>and which time frame do I use to figure the energy of the Maser beam?
>ship's time or earth's time?
The formula for the capital T in formula (4) is the time needed to
decelerate in the ship's frame.