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

*To*: T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl, kgstar@most.fw.hac.com, stevev@efn.org, jim@bogie2.bio.purdue.edu, KellySt@aol.com, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu, rddesign@wolfenet.com, David@interworld.com, lparker@destin.gulfnet.com*Subject*: Re: Optimum Interstellar Rockets*From*: DotarSojat@aol.com*Date*: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 16:30:33 -0500

At 2:06 PM 4/4/96, Kelly Starks wrote: >Other than complexity, would adjusting the exaust vel for opt- >imum at ships current vel (I.E. as the ships speed increases. >Changing the exaust velocity for the optimum for that speed) >buy us anything? You decide. (It would probably require a sophisticated math- ematical technique called "the calculus of variations" to tell us exactly how much such an optimum exhaust-velocity program would buy us.) Suppose we could find an exhaust-velocity profile that could raise the kinetic-energy efficiency to 100 percent. Would mul- tiplying all the minimum-antimatter ratios by 0.6+ (the maximum kinetic-energy efficiency for constant exhaust velocity) signif- icantly change the implications of the numbers in the table? The ratios already seem surprisingly small. Regards, Rex

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Broken Draft on New Lit Server** - Next by Date:
**Problems with beaming** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Optimum Interstellar Rockets** - Next by thread:
**Problems with beaming** - Index(es):