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

*To*: KellySt@aol.com, kgstar@most.fw.hac.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, DotarSojat@aol.com, neill@foda.math.usu.edu, 101765.2200@compuserve.com, MLEN3097@Mercury.GC.PeachNet.EDU*Subject*: Re: Physics help (I found it!)*From*: T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl (Timothy van der Linden)*Date*: Sat, 18 May 1996 00:01:12 +0100

Kelly wrote: >>Well thats part of it. It certainly doesn't give me a warm comfident >>feeling when our numbers are that far apart! Eiather we're talking about >>something fundamentally different and don't realize it, one of us has a >>blown calculator, or one of us is badly misappling some equation. Was that you? >We were both talking about something fundamentally differnt, but didn't >know it! The difference was all due to the slightly different Delta V. >The Exponential makes a hellish difference given even slight differnces in >the speed assumptions. > >(See why I always want to see examples with numbers and units with your >equations Tim?) The numbers where there before, but apparently they did not help much. >So a 55 to 1 fuel ratio with a Vexh of 2E7 m/s: > >55 = exp (?/2E7) > >or > >2e7 * Ln (55) = 80E6 = .267c > >So we can still get a burn down from over 1/4th c with the same fuel ratio. >Giving a touch under 17 years for a flight time to Alpha C. Much better >than I was afraid of. That mass ratio is only for acceleration OR deceleration, if you want to do both you need to square that mass ratio. (55^2=3025) Isn't AC a bit too close? Timothy

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Physics help (I found it!)** - Next by Date:
**Re: Physics help (I found it!)** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Physics help (I found it!)** - Next by thread:
**Re: Physics help (I found it!)** - Index(es):