From owner-starship-design Tue Apr 1 11:54 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2592" "Tue" "1" "April" "1997" "21:53:54" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl" nil "63" "starship-design: -Highly Autonomous Systems" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA03072 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 11:54:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA03016 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 11:54:39 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3) id VAA05665 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 21:53:54 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199704011953.VAA05665@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2591 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: -Highly Autonomous Systems Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 21:53:54 +0200 (MET DST) ----- Begin Included Message ----- >From nishida@is.aist-nara.ac.jp Tue Apr 1 21:22:49 1997 Date: 1 Apr 1997 10:49:19 -0700 From: "Richard Doyle" Subject: -Highly Autonomous Systems To: qphysics@is.aist-nara.ac.jp X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP/QM 3.0.0 Content-Length: 2250 Subject: Time: 10:47 AM OFFICE MEMO É Date: 4/1/97 For those with interest in both AI and space, there is a symposium with a HAL 9000 theme next week in Pasadena. A difference between this meeting and others this year at Cambridge and Urbana to celebrate HAL's birthyear, is that JPL and NASA AI technologists actually are working to build intelligent spacecraft! It is not too late to register. Highly Autonomous Systems Workshop In our lifetime, through the eyes of simple robots, grand vistas on other worlds have been unveiled for the first time. Enigmatic questions compel us to go further, to touch these distant landscapes and learn the secrets of the solar system. Yet in trying, we find our reach wanting, limited by the link to Earth upon which our probes depend. We are learning that to explore further, these probes must go alone. And to go alone, they must become much more intelligent. The Highly Autonomous Systems Workshop celebrates the birth, in both fact and fiction, of this new generation of explorers. It is our aim to bring together visionaries and skeptics, practitioners and researchers in artificial intelligence, scientist, mission designers, spacecraft designers and partners in aerospace to discuss the important advances in autonomous systems that are propelling this genesis. In exploration, this technology encounters a true and natural test of its maturity where there is no quarter for mediocrity, but where all can freely watch and weigh its performance. The workshop will be held on April 9 - 10 at the Pasadena Hilton. Detailed information is available at the workshop website at http://ic-www.arc.nasa.gov/ic/Hal9000/. The topics to be covered are: Spacecraft Autonomy: History & Visions State of the Art Autonomous Systems Autonomy Technology for 2001 Long Term Challenges in Autonomy University Design Competion Join us to help guide and nurture autonomy's development. Learn about its enormous potential, both in space and here at home. Share your ideas, and find a way to participate. Please pass this message along to your colleagues and other interested individuals. ----- End Included Message ----- From owner-starship-design Thu Apr 17 06:14 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["11248" "Thu" "17" "April" "1997" "08:10:47" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "299" "starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Subcommittee authorizes another X-vehicle (fwd)" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA21315 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 06:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA21304 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 06:14:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p65.gnt.com (p65.gnt.com [204.49.68.66]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA15813 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 08:14:24 -0500 Received: by p65.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC4B07.598B7FE0@p65.gnt.com>; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 08:14:19 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC4B07.598B7FE0@p65.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id GAA21305 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 11247 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Subcommittee authorizes another X-vehicle (fwd) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 08:10:47 -0500 Long experience has taught me not to believe in the limitations indicated by purely theoretical considerations. These - as we well know - are based on insufficient knowledge of all the relevant factors." Guglielmo Marconi -----Original Message----- From: Chris W. Johnson [SMTP:chrisj@mail.utexas.edu] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 1997 1:33 AM To: Single Stage Rocket Technology News Subject: SSRT: Space Subcommittee authorizes another X-vehicle (fwd) -------- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 17:18:58 -0700 (MST) From: Donald Doughty To: DC-X Subject: NEWS: Space Subcommittee authorizes another X-vehicle!! (fwd) Reply-To: delta-clipper@europe.std.com The key words in this bill are "technologies more advanced than," does this mean an SSTO VL vehicle not an option for this funding? Can this be changed during the bill markup? See section II below. ..Don Doughty, DC-X List Manager (II) $150,000,000, which shall only be a program of focused technology demonstrations to support the competitive awarding of a contract to develop, build, and flight test an experimental single-stage-to-orbit demonstration vehicle using design concepts different from, and technologies more advanced than, the design concepts and technologies used for the X-33 program; and ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 02:12:08 -0400 (EDT) From: SpFrontier@aol.com Subject: NEWS: Space Subcommittee authorizes another X-vehicle!! **************************************** * ProSpace LEGISLATIVE News ALERT * * Distribute to all lists * **************************************** * Congressional Space Subcomittee * * to authorize NEW X-vehicle, * * and other Good news * **************************************** **************************************** * To be ADDED to this List, or * * to be REMOVED from this List * * send a request to SpFrontier@aol.com * **************************************** ******************************************************* * TABLE OF CONTENTS * * * * 1) Good News from the House Space Subcommittee * * 2) Coming: Future opportunities for Citizen Action * * 3) APPENDIX: Language from H.R. 1275 * * * ******************************************************* ************************** 1) Good News from Congress ************************** Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Chairman of the House Space Subcommittee, has introduced H.R. 1275, the "Civilian Space Authorization Act." This bill brings a wealth of good progress, as it acts on many of the requests of the 55 citizens who came to Washington, D.C. just 4 weeks ago. Visit "www.space-frontier.org/ProSpace" to see a copy of the bill. A Summary of the GOOD News in H.R. 1275: * It is a *2-year* authorization for NASA, the Office of Commercial Space Transportation in the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Office of Space Commerce in the Department of Commerce. * It FULLY funds the X-33 program at $333,500,000 in FY98, and $313,900,000 in FY99. (Detailed legislative language in Appendix below). --> This is what ProSpace, and the 55 "Friends of the Frontier" (the citizens who came to Washington, DC last month) asked for in the March Storm. Plus we get a bonus - full funding for the X-33 will be authorized for the following year. * It gives the X-33 program its own budget line item. This will help protect it from potential bureaucratic power plays inside NASA, and is an indication of Congress' strong support for the program. ****BIG NEWS**** * It authorizes $750,000,000 (over 2 years) for a BRAND-NEW X-vehicle. (Detailed legislative language in Appendix below). --> This is exactly the kind of leadership that the American people are looking for from our elected leaders. NASA Administrator Dan Goldin has said he wants to "blacken the sky with x-vehicles" and now PART of Congress has demonstrated that it is willing to act. ProSpace believes that "Cheap Access to Space" is the No#1 short-term policy goal of our nation. In this spirit, ProSpace and the "Friends of the Frontier" are fighting for a continuing series of X-vehicles to follow the X-33. The "Friends" asked for a new x-vehicle program during the March Storm last month. Now it looks like we have a chance - IF the rest of the prospace American public is ready to join this fight. If we act TOGETHER we can and will get it through the rest of Congress over the next several months. * It legislatively creates and fully funds the *Office of Space Commerce* in the Department of Commerce. --> ProSpace strongly supports this action. The Department of Commerce should be given the resources to take on a *much* larger role in the commercialization and economic development of space. * It provides small increases for important science initiatives, such as asteroid detection and the Clementine II asteroid intercept mission. Overall, it provides steady funding for space science. * It directs NASA to purchase space science from commercial vendors. --> ProSpace believes this is one area that NASA program management could demonstrate some real leadership. The opportunity to look GOOD is there right now. * It authorizes funding for *commercial* purchase of environmental data for Mission to Planet Earth. * It directs NASA to pursue the *greatest* possible commercial participation and use of the Internat- ional Space Station. --> ProSpace strongly supports this, and believes the entire Space Station should be transferred to a commercial international entity after construction is completed. One interesting possibility being discussed is a "Space Station Port Authority" like the authorities that operate most of the major seaports and airports in the United States. As envisioned, an International Authority would operate all aspects of the Station, provide the specified share of science utilization to each country's scientists, lease additional rack space to commercial users, and commercially purchase all goods and services (including transportation of people) needed by the Station. If there is a need for more power, or if there is not enough rack-space for commercial companies or scientists, the authority could just build it ... maybe in a year or two instead of decades. * Consistent with the President's National Space Policy, it mandates the purchase of, and prohibits NASA competition with, commercially-available space goods and services. --> ProSpace believes this action demonstrates clear bi-partisan agreement between the Congress and the White House on some things that NASA could change now. ******************************************* 2) Coming: Opportunities for Citizen Action ******************************************* This bill from the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics is only part of the story. We, the American people, need to get the other parts of Congress to join with the House space subcommittee. That is where you come in. ProSpace will be sending out alerts in the near future asking for your letters, and your phone calls, to complete the job that 55 Americans started. We need everybody's help. First, we will need to get the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies (which has jurisdiction over funding for space) to support the X-33 and this brand-new X-vehicle. Second, we will need to get the Senate to support the exact same things in both the authorization side, and on the appropriation side. And we still have the fight for the commercial space bill!! Keep your computers tuned to this channel. A lot more action is coming our way. The only thing at stake is your future, our future, on the space frontier. See you on the Frontier! - Charles Charles E. Miller President ProSpace - The Citizens' Space Lobby ******************** For More Information ******************** Send an email request to "SpFrontier@aol.com", Visit "www.space-frontier.org/ProSpace", or Call 707-649-0225 (9 a.m. to 4 p.m. PST). ***************************************** 3) APPENDIX: Some Language from H.R. 1275 ***************************************** Following are selected portions of HR 1275, the "Civilian Space Authorization Act." To see the ENTIRE BILL, visit ProSpace's website at "www.space-frontier.org/ProSpace". ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' (A) for fiscal year 1998 ... (ii) $696,600,000 shall be for Advanced Space Transportation, including- (I) $333,500,000, which shall only be for the X-33 advanced technology demonstration vehicle program, including $3,700,000 for rehabilitation and modification of the B2 test stand, Stennis Space Center; (II) $150,000,000, which shall only be a program of focused technology demonstrations to support the competitive awarding of a contract to develop, build, and flight test an experimental single-stage-to-orbit demonstration vehicle using design concepts different from, and technologies more advanced than, the design concepts and technologies used for the X-33 program; and (III) $150,000,000, which shall only be for the procurement of an experimental vehicle described in subclause (II), after the expiration of 30 days after the Admin- istrator has transmitted to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a written report including a plan for the experimental vehicle program and the projected costs thereof; and ****AND**** (B) for fiscal year 1999, ... (ii) $818,600,000 shall be for Advanced Space Transportation, including- (I) $313,900,000, which shall only be for the X-33 advanced technology demonstration vehicle program; and (II) $450,000,000, which shall only be for the procurement of an experimental vehicle described in subparagraph (A)(ii)(II); and ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' From owner-starship-design Thu Apr 17 20:14 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["14417" "Thu" "17" "April" "1997" "23:13:31" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "332" "starship-design: Fwd: No Subject" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA29047 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 20:14:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA29031 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 20:14:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA24432; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 23:13:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970417231044_2082740692@emout07.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 14416 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: rickj@btio.com, LEVEL42@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu, kelly_starks@fmc.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Fwd: No Subject Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 23:13:31 -0400 (EDT) --------------------- Forwarded message: From: lparker@cacaphony.net (L. Parker) To: kellyst@aol.com ('kellyst@aol.com') Date: 97-04-13 23:35:29 EDT Emerging Possibilities for Space Propulsion Breakthroughs Originally published in the Interstellar Propulsion Society Newsletter, Vol. I, No. 1, July 1, 1995. Marc G. Millis Space Propulsion Technology Division NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, Ohio The ideal interstellar propulsion system would be one that could get you to other stars as quickly and comfortably as envisioned in science fiction. Before this can become a reality, two scientific breakthroughs are needed: discovery of a means to exceed light speed, and discovery of a means to manipulate the coupling between mass and spacetime. This article explains why these breakthroughs are needed and introduces the emerging possibilities that may eventually lead to these breakthroughs. It should be noted that either of these breakthroughs by itself would have revolutionary consequences which would be of enormous value. The need to exceed light speed: Simply put, the universe is big. The fastest thing known is light, yet it takes over four years for light to reach our nearest neighboring star. When NASA's Voyager spacecraft left our solar system is was traveling around 37- thousand mph. At that rate it couldn't reach the nearest star until after 80-thousand years. If we want to cruise to other stars within comfortable time spans (say, less than a term in Congress), we have to figure out a way to go faster than light. The need to manipulate mass and spacetime coupling: This need is less obvious than the light speed issue. The problem is fuel, or more specifically, rocket propellant. Unlike a car that has the road to push against, or an airplane that has the air to push against, rockets don't have roads or air in space. Rockets have to carry along all the mass that they'll need to push against. To circumvent this problem, we need to find a way to interact with spacetime itself to induce propulsive forces without using propellant. This implies that we'll need to find a way to alter a vehicle's inertia, its gravitational field, or its general relativity, it has been shown that faster than light travel may be possible (ref 7). All you need to do is contract spacetime in front of your ship and expand spacetime behind your ship. This "warped" space and the region within it would propel itself "with an arbitrarily large speed" (ref 7). Observers outside this "warp" would see it move faster than the speed of light. Observers inside this "warp" would feel no acceleration as they zip along at warp speed. So what's the catch? First, to expand spacetime behind the ship you'll need matter having a negative energy density like negative mass, and lots of it too. It is unknown in physics whether negative mass or negative energy densities can exist. Classical physics tends toward a "no," while quantum physics leans to a "maybe, yes." Second, you'll need equal amounts of positive energy density matter, positive mass, to contract spacetime in front of the ship. Third, you'll need a way to control this effect to turn it on and off at will. And lastly, there is the debate about whether this whole "warp" would indeed move faster than the speed of light. To address this speeding issue, the theory draws on the "inflationary universe" perspective. The idea goes something like this: Even though light-speed is a limit within spacetime, the rate at which spacetime itself can expand or contract is an open issue. Back during the early moments of the Big Bang, spacetime expands faster than the speed of light. So if spacetime can expand faster than the speed of light during the Big Bang, why not for our warp drive? Just prior to the publication of the above theory, there was a workshop held at JPL to examine the possibilities for faster-than-light travel (ref 8). Wormholes, tachyons, and alternate dimensions were just some of the topics examined. The conclusions from this informal two-day workshop are as follows: (1) Faster-than-light travel is beyond our current horizons. Not only is the physics inadequately developed, but this physics is not oriented toward space propulsion or toward laboratory scale experiments. (2) Causality violations (where effect precedes cause) are unavoidable if faster-than-light travel is possible, but it is uncertain whether causality violations are themselves physically prohibited. (3) A few experimental approaches are feasible to address the science associated with faster- than-light travel, including: (a) Search for evidence of wormholes using astronomical observations: look for a group of co-moving stars or for the visual distortions indicative of a negative mass hole entrance. (b) Measure the velocity of light inside a Casimir cavity (between closely spaced conductive plates) to search for evidence of negative space energy. This pertains to wormholes, tachyons, and the negative energy density issue. (c) Resolve the rest mass issue of the Neutrino, determining whether the unconfirmed experimental evidence of imaginary mass is genuine. (d) Study cosmic rays above the atmosphere, using scattering targets of know composition to look for characteristic evidence of tachyons and more general particle physics events. New ways to think of inertia and gravity: As mentioned earlier, the ideal interstellar drive would have the ability to manipulate the connection between mass and spacetime. One approach is to look for ways to use electromagnetism, a phenomenon for which we are technologically proficient, to control inertial or gravitational forces. It is known that gravity and electromagnetism are coupled phenomena. In the formalism of general relativity this coupling is described in terms of how mass warps the spacetime against which electromagnetism is measured. In simple terms this has the consequence that gravity appears to bend light, red-shift light and slow time. These observations and the general relativistic formalism that describes them have been confirmed (ref 9, 10). Although gravity's affects on electromagnetism have been confirmed, the possibility of the reverse, of using electromagnetism to affect y electromagnetic drag against the Zero Point Fluctuations. Gravity, the attraction between masses, is described as Van der Waals forces between oscillating dipoles, where these dipoles are the charged particles that have been set into oscillation by the ZPE background. It should be noted that these theories were not written in the context of propulsion and do not yet provide direct clues for how to electromagnetically manipulate inertia or gravity. Also, these theories are still too new to have either been confirmed or discounted. Despite these uncertainties, typical of any fledgling theory, these theories do provide new approaches to search for breakthrough propulsion physics. Their utility and correctness remains to be determined. Another viewpoint on gravity and spacetime: As mentioned earlier, the ideal interstellar drive must not use propellant. Instead the ideal drive would have to use some means to push against spacetime itself. One of the major objections to this notion is the issue of conservation of momentum (ref 19). In order to satisfy conservation of momentum, something must act as a reaction mass. For rockets it is the expelled propellant; for aircraft it is the air. If one considers propelling against spacetime itself, then one must entertain the possibility that the fields of spacetime have an energy or momentum that can serve as a reaction mass. Although existing physics does not provide this perspective, a recent theory has emerged that might. A news article published in December 94 (ref 6) introduced a theory (ref 20) that is challenging Einstein's general theory of relativity. The theory is generating a bit of controversy because it claims that the Einstein field equations need a slight correction. Without this correction it is claimed that the Einstein equations can only predict the behavior of simple one-body problems (where only one gravitating mass exists whose affect on an inconsequential test particle is described). For two-body or n-body problems, this new theory shows that the Einstein equations are inadequate. The required correction is that another term must be added to the matter tensor, specifically a term for the stress-energy tensor of the gravitational field itself. This suggests that gravitational fields have an energy and momentum of their own. This may be a foundation to address the issue of a reaction mass for the ideal space drive. Like the previously mentioned theories, it is uncertain whether this theory is correct or not, but it is certain that this theory adds yet another research path to search for breakthrough propulsion. But wait, there's more: Another avenue to explore pushing against space is to examine the contents of the vacuum that may be indicative of a reaction mass. In addition to the items mentioned above, consider the following phenomena: Cosmic Background Radiation (ref 21), Virtual Pair Production (ref 22), and Dark Matter (ref 23). Whether any of these may constitute a reaction mass or may be evidence for a reaction mass is uncertain. In addition to these recent events, there have been occasional surveys by the Air Force and others to examine science that may be applicable to propulsion technology (refs 24-29). The options identified by these studies include assessments of the technological status of many popular ideas, such as light-sails, nuclear rockets, and antimatter rockets, plus they include mention of more speculative work. Many of the more speculative ideas, from alternative theories of gravity and electromagnetism through unconfirmed anomalous effects, would be relativity simple to test. Very few of these possibilities have been rigorously investigated. As you can see, there are a number of dangling loose ends in physics that may prove to be fruitful paths to the goal of creating the breakthroughs for practical interstellar travel. Pick your favorite idea and let us know what you discover. REFERENCES Note: An annotated bibligoraphy is available. 1.Mallove, E.F., and Matloff, G.L., The Starflight Handbook, Wiley Science Editions, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York (1989). 2. Gonick, L., "Science Classics (Warp-and-woof drive)", In Discover, p. 44-54, (DEC 1994). 3. Szpir, M, "Spacetime Hypersurfing?", In American Scientist, Vol. 82, p. 422-423, (September-October 1994) 4. Clarke, A. C., "Space Drive: A Fantasy That Could Become Reality", In Ad Astra, p. 38, (Nov-Dec 1994) 5. Matthews, R., "Inertia: Does Empty Space Put Up the Resistance?", In Science, Vol. 263, p. 612-613, (4 Feb 1994). 6. Peterson, I., "A New Gravity?, Challenging Einstein's General Theory of Relativity", In Science News, Vol. 146, p. 376-378, (Dec 3, 1994). 7. Alcubierre, M., "The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity", In Classical and Quantum Gravity, Vol 11, p. L73- L77, (1994). 8. Bennett, G., "Warp Speed, Fact or Fiction?", In Final Frontier, p. 35-39, (September-October 1994). 9. Pool,R., "Closing in On Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity", In Science, Vol. 250, p. 1207-1208, (Nov. 9, 1990). 10. Misner,C.W., Thorne,K.S., and Wheeler,J.A., Gravitation, W.H.Freeman and Co., New York (1973). 11. Haisch, B., Rueda, A., and Puthoff, H.E., "Inertia as a Zero-Point Field Lorentz Force", In Physical Review A, Vol. 49, No. 2, p. 678- 694, (FEB 1994) 12. Puthoff,H.E., "Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force", In Physical Review A, Vol. 39, N. 5, (A89-33278), p. 2333-2342, (Mar 1, 1989). 13. Boyer,T.H., "The Classical Vacuum", In Scientific American, p. 70-78, (Aug 1985). 14. Sparnaay, M. J., Measurements of Attractive Forces between Flat Plates, In Physica, Vol. 24, p. 751-764, (1958). 15. Casimir,H.B.G., and Polder, D., "The Influence of Retardation on the London-van der Waals Forces", In Physical Review, Vol.73, N.4, p.360-372, (February 15, 1948). 16. Boyer,T.M., "Random Electrodynamics: The Theory of Classical Electromagnetic Zero-Point Radiation" In Physical Review D, Vol.11, N.4, p.790-808, (Feb 15, 1975). 17. Puthoff,H.E., "Ground State of Hydrogen as a Zero-Point-Fluctuation- Determined State", In Physical Review D, Vol.35, No.10, p.3266-3269, (15 May 1987). 18. Haroche,S. and Kleppner,D., "Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics" In Physics Today, p.24-30, (January, 1989). 19. Millis, M. G., "Exploring the Notion of Space Coupling Propulsion", In Vision 21: Space Travel for the Next Millennium, Symposium Proceedings, Apr 1990, NASA-CP-10059, p. 307-316, (1990). 20. Yilmaz, H., "Toward a Field Theory of Gravitation", In Il Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 107B, no. 8, p. 941-960, (Aug 1992). 21. Muller, R. A., "The Cosmic Background Radiation and the new Aether Drift", In Scientific American, Vol. 238, N. 5, p. 64-74, (May 1978). 22. Kaufmann, W. J. III, Black Holes and Warped Spacetime, pp 206-208, W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, (1979). 23. Krauss, L. M., "Dark Matter in the Universe", In Scientific American, p. 58-68, (Dec 1986). 24. Mead, F. B. ,Jr., et al, Advanced Propulsion Concepts - Project Outgrowth, AFRPL-TR-72-31, (JUN 1972). 25. Forward, R. L., "Feasibility of Interstellar Travel: A Review", In Acta Astronautica, Vol. 14, p 243-252, (1986) 26. Mead, F. B. ,Jr., "Exotic Concepts for Future Propulsion and Space Travel", In Advanced Propulsion Concepts, 1989 JPM Specialist Session, (JANNAF) Chemical Propulsion Information Agency, CPIA Publication 528, p.93-99, (May 24, 1989). 27. Cravens,D.L., Electric Propulsion Study, AL-TR-89-040, Final Report on Contract FO4611-88-C-0014, Air Force Astronautics Lab (AFSC), (Aug 1990). 28. Evans, R.A., British Aerospace Ltd. Co (BAe) University Round Table on Gravitational Research, Report on Meeting held at the NOVOTEL Conf. Ctr., Preston , on March 26-27, 1990, FBS 007, (Nov 1990). 29. Forward, R. L., 21st Century Space Propulsion Study, AL-TR-90-030, Final Report on Contract FO4611-87-C-0029, Air Force Astronautics Lab (AFSC), (Oct 1990). --AND-- Forward,R.L., 21st Century Space Propulsion Study (Addendum), PL-TR-91-3022, Final (Addendum), OLAC Phillips Lab, formally known as Air Force Astronautics Lab (AFSC), (June 1991). From owner-starship-design Sat Apr 19 12:55 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["14489" "Sat" "19" "April" "1997" "14:44:58" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "169" "starship-design: Emerging Possibilities for Space Propulsion Breakthroughs" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA25364 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 12:55:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA25352 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 12:55:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p37.gnt.com (p37.gnt.com [204.49.68.38]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA09499 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 14:55:06 -0500 Received: by p37.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC4CD1.9F372B40@p37.gnt.com>; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 14:54:46 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC4CD1.9F372B40@p37.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id MAA25355 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 14488 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Emerging Possibilities for Space Propulsion Breakthroughs Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 14:44:58 -0500 Emerging Possibilities for Space Propulsion Breakthroughs Originally published in the Interstellar Propulsion Society Newsletter, Vol. I, No. 1, July 1, 1995. Marc G. Millis Space Propulsion Technology Division NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, Ohio The ideal interstellar propulsion system would be one that could get you to other stars as quickly and comfortably as envisioned in science fiction. Before this can become a reality, two scientific breakthroughs are needed: discovery of a means to exceed light speed, and discovery of a means to manipulate the coupling between mass and spacetime. This article explains why these breakthroughs are needed and introduces the emerging possibilities that may eventually lead to these breakthroughs. It should be noted that either of these breakthroughs by itself would have revolutionary consequences which would be of enormous value. The need to exceed light speed: Simply put, the universe is big. The fastest thing known is light, yet it takes over four years for light to reach our nearest neighboring star. When NASA's Voyager spacecraft left our solar system is was traveling around 37- thousand mph. At that rate it couldn't reach the nearest star until after 80-thousand years. If we want to cruise to other stars within comfortable time spans (say, less than a term in Congress), we have to figure out a way to go faster than light. The need to manipulate mass and spacetime coupling: This need is less obvious than the light speed issue. The problem is fuel, or more specifically, rocket propellant. Unlike a car that has the road to push against, or an airplane that has the air to push against, rockets don't have roads or air in space. Rockets have to carry along all the mass that they'll need to push against. To circumvent this problem, we need to find a way to interact with spacetime itself to induce propulsive forces without using propellant. This implies that we'll need to find a way to alter a vehicle's inertia, its gravitational field, or its general relativity, it has been shown that faster than light travel may be possible (ref 7). All you need to do is contract spacetime in front of your ship and expand spacetime behind your ship. This "warped" space and the region within it would propel itself "with an arbitrarily large speed" (ref 7). Observers outside this "warp" would see it move faster than the speed of light. Observers inside this "warp" would feel no acceleration as they zip along at warp speed. So what's the catch? First, to expand spacetime behind the ship you'll need matter having a negative energy density like negative mass, and lots of it too. It is unknown in physics whether negative mass or negative energy densities can exist. Classical physics tends toward a "no," while quantum physics leans to a "maybe, yes." Second, you'll need equal amounts of positive energy density matter, positive mass, to contract spacetime in front of the ship. Third, you'll need a way to control this effect to turn it on and off at will. And lastly, there is the debate about whether this whole "warp" would indeed move faster than the speed of light. To address this speeding issue, the theory draws on the "inflationary universe" perspective. The idea goes something like this: Even though light-speed is a limit within spacetime, the rate at which spacetime itself can expand or contract is an open issue. Back during the early moments of the Big Bang, spacetime expands faster than the speed of light. So if spacetime can expand faster than the speed of light during the Big Bang, why not for our warp drive? Just prior to the publication of the above theory, there was a workshop held at JPL to examine the possibilities for faster-than-light travel (ref 8). Wormholes, tachyons, and alternate dimensions were just some of the topics examined. The conclusions from this informal two-day workshop are as follows: (1) Faster-than-light travel is beyond our current horizons. Not only is the physics inadequately developed, but this physics is not oriented toward space propulsion or toward laboratory scale experiments. (2) Causality violations (where effect precedes cause) are unavoidable if faster-than-light travel is possible, but it is uncertain whether causality violations are themselves physically prohibited. (3) A few experimental approaches are feasible to address the science associated with faster- than-light travel, including: (a) Search for evidence of wormholes using astronomical observations: look for a group of co-moving stars or for the visual distortions indicative of a negative mass hole entrance. (b) Measure the velocity of light inside a Casimir cavity (between closely spaced conductive plates) to search for evidence of negative space energy. This pertains to wormholes, tachyons, and the negative energy density issue. (c) Resolve the rest mass issue of the Neutrino, determining whether the unconfirmed experimental evidence of imaginary mass is genuine. (d) Study cosmic rays above the atmosphere, using scattering targets of know composition to look for characteristic evidence of tachyons and more general particle physics events. New ways to think of inertia and gravity: As mentioned earlier, the ideal interstellar drive would have the ability to manipulate the connection between mass and spacetime. One approach is to look for ways to use electromagnetism, a phenomenon for which we are technologically proficient, to control inertial or gravitational forces. It is known that gravity and electromagnetism are coupled phenomena. In the formalism of general relativity this coupling is described in terms of how mass warps the spacetime against which electromagnetism is measured. In simple terms this has the consequence that gravity appears to bend light, red-shift light and slow time. These observations and the general relativistic formalism that describes them have been confirmed (ref 9, 10). Although gravity's affects on electromagnetism have been confirmed, the possibility of the reverse, of using electromagnetism to affect y electromagnetic drag against the Zero Point Fluctuations. Gravity, the attraction between masses, is described as Van der Waals forces between oscillating dipoles, where these dipoles are the charged particles that have been set into oscillation by the ZPE background. It should be noted that these theories were not written in the context of propulsion and do not yet provide direct clues for how to electromagnetically manipulate inertia or gravity. Also, these theories are still too new to have either been confirmed or discounted. Despite these uncertainties, typical of any fledgling theory, these theories do provide new approaches to search for breakthrough propulsion physics. Their utility and correctness remains to be determined. Another viewpoint on gravity and spacetime: As mentioned earlier, the ideal interstellar drive must not use propellant. Instead the ideal drive would have to use some means to push against spacetime itself. One of the major objections to this notion is the issue of conservation of momentum (ref 19). In order to satisfy conservation of momentum, something must act as a reaction mass. For rockets it is the expelled propellant; for aircraft it is the air. If one considers propelling against spacetime itself, then one must entertain the possibility that the fields of spacetime have an energy or momentum that can serve as a reaction mass. Although existing physics does not provide this perspective, a recent theory has emerged that might. A news article published in December 94 (ref 6) introduced a theory (ref 20) that is challenging Einstein's general theory of relativity. The theory is generating a bit of controversy because it claims that the Einstein field equations need a slight correction. Without this correction it is claimed that the Einstein equations can only predict the behavior of simple one-body problems (where only one gravitating mass exists whose affect on an inconsequential test particle is described). For two-body or n-body problems, this new theory shows that the Einstein equations are inadequate. The required correction is that another term must be added to the matter tensor, specifically a term for the stress-energy tensor of the gravitational field itself. This suggests that gravitational fields have an energy and momentum of their own. This may be a foundation to address the issue of a reaction mass for the ideal space drive. Like the previously mentioned theories, it is uncertain whether this theory is correct or not, but it is certain that this theory adds yet another research path to search for breakthrough propulsion. But wait, there's more: Another avenue to explore pushing against space is to examine the contents of the vacuum that may be indicative of a reaction mass. In addition to the items mentioned above, consider the following phenomena: Cosmic Background Radiation (ref 21), Virtual Pair Production (ref 22), and Dark Matter (ref 23). Whether any of these may constitute a reaction mass or may be evidence for a reaction mass is uncertain. In addition to these recent events, there have been occasional surveys by the Air Force and others to examine science that may be applicable to propulsion technology (refs 24-29). The options identified by these studies include assessments of the technological status of many popular ideas, such as light-sails, nuclear rockets, and antimatter rockets, plus they include mention of more speculative work. Many of the more speculative ideas, from alternative theories of gravity and electromagnetism through unconfirmed anomalous effects, would be relativity simple to test. Very few of these possibilities have been rigorously investigated. As you can see, there are a number of dangling loose ends in physics that may prove to be fruitful paths to the goal of creating the breakthroughs for practical interstellar travel. Pick your favorite idea and let us know what you discover. REFERENCES Note: An annotated bibligoraphy is available. 1.Mallove, E.F., and Matloff, G.L., The Starflight Handbook, Wiley Science Editions, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York (1989). 2. Gonick, L., "Science Classics (Warp-and-woof drive)", In Discover, p. 44-54, (DEC 1994). 3. Szpir, M, "Spacetime Hypersurfing?", In American Scientist, Vol. 82, p. 422-423, (September-October 1994) 4. Clarke, A. C., "Space Drive: A Fantasy That Could Become Reality", In Ad Astra, p. 38, (Nov-Dec 1994) 5. Matthews, R., "Inertia: Does Empty Space Put Up the Resistance?", In Science, Vol. 263, p. 612-613, (4 Feb 1994). 6. Peterson, I., "A New Gravity?, Challenging Einstein's General Theory of Relativity", In Science News, Vol. 146, p. 376-378, (Dec 3, 1994). 7. Alcubierre, M., "The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity", In Classical and Quantum Gravity, Vol 11, p. L73- L77, (1994). 8. Bennett, G., "Warp Speed, Fact or Fiction?", In Final Frontier, p. 35-39, (September-October 1994). 9. Pool,R., "Closing in On Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity", In Science, Vol. 250, p. 1207-1208, (Nov. 9, 1990). 10. Misner,C.W., Thorne,K.S., and Wheeler,J.A., Gravitation, W.H.Freeman and Co., New York (1973). 11. Haisch, B., Rueda, A., and Puthoff, H.E., "Inertia as a Zero-Point Field Lorentz Force", In Physical Review A, Vol. 49, No. 2, p. 678- 694, (FEB 1994) 12. Puthoff,H.E., "Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force", In Physical Review A, Vol. 39, N. 5, (A89-33278), p. 2333-2342, (Mar 1, 1989). 13. Boyer,T.H., "The Classical Vacuum", In Scientific American, p. 70-78, (Aug 1985). 14. Sparnaay, M. J., Measurements of Attractive Forces between Flat Plates, In Physica, Vol. 24, p. 751-764, (1958). 15. Casimir,H.B.G., and Polder, D., "The Influence of Retardation on the London-van der Waals Forces", In Physical Review, Vol.73, N.4, p.360-372, (February 15, 1948). 16. Boyer,T.M., "Random Electrodynamics: The Theory of Classical Electromagnetic Zero-Point Radiation" In Physical Review D, Vol.11, N.4, p.790-808, (Feb 15, 1975). 17. Puthoff,H.E., "Ground State of Hydrogen as a Zero-Point-Fluctuation- Determined State", In Physical Review D, Vol.35, No.10, p.3266-3269, (15 May 1987). 18. Haroche,S. and Kleppner,D., "Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics" In Physics Today, p.24-30, (January, 1989). 19. Millis, M. G., "Exploring the Notion of Space Coupling Propulsion", In Vision 21: Space Travel for the Next Millennium, Symposium Proceedings, Apr 1990, NASA-CP-10059, p. 307-316, (1990). 20. Yilmaz, H., "Toward a Field Theory of Gravitation", In Il Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 107B, no. 8, p. 941-960, (Aug 1992). 21. Muller, R. A., "The Cosmic Background Radiation and the new Aether Drift", In Scientific American, Vol. 238, N. 5, p. 64-74, (May 1978). 22. Kaufmann, W. J. III, Black Holes and Warped Spacetime, pp 206-208, W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, (1979). 23. Krauss, L. M., "Dark Matter in the Universe", In Scientific American, p. 58-68, (Dec 1986). 24. Mead, F. B. ,Jr., et al, Advanced Propulsion Concepts - Project Outgrowth, AFRPL-TR-72-31, (JUN 1972). 25. Forward, R. L., "Feasibility of Interstellar Travel: A Review", In Acta Astronautica, Vol. 14, p 243-252, (1986) 26. Mead, F. B. ,Jr., "Exotic Concepts for Future Propulsion and Space Travel", In Advanced Propulsion Concepts, 1989 JPM Specialist Session, (JANNAF) Chemical Propulsion Information Agency, CPIA Publication 528, p.93-99, (May 24, 1989). 27. Cravens,D.L., Electric Propulsion Study, AL-TR-89-040, Final Report on Contract FO4611-88-C-0014, Air Force Astronautics Lab (AFSC), (Aug 1990). 28. Evans, R.A., British Aerospace Ltd. Co (BAe) University Round Table on Gravitational Research, Report on Meeting held at the NOVOTEL Conf. Ctr., Preston , on March 26-27, 1990, FBS 007, (Nov 1990). 29. Forward, R. L., 21st Century Space Propulsion Study, AL-TR-90-030, Final Report on Contract FO4611-87-C-0029, Air Force Astronautics Lab (AFSC), (Oct 1990). --AND-- Forward,R.L., 21st Century Space Propulsion Study (Addendum), PL-TR-91-3022, Final (Addendum), OLAC Phillips Lab, formally known as Air Force Astronautics Lab (AFSC), (June 1991). Long experience has taught me not to believe in the limitations indicated by purely theoretical considerations. These - as we well know - are based on insufficient knowledge of all the relevant factors." Guglielmo Marconi From owner-starship-design Sat Apr 19 15:02 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["448" "Sat" "19" "April" "1997" "14:58:13" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "18" "starship-design: http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA28474 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 15:01:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA28465 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 15:01:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p100.gnt.com (p100.gnt.com [204.49.68.101]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA14033 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 17:01:54 -0500 Received: by p100.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC4CE3.5EA52660@p100.gnt.com>; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 17:01:48 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC4CE3.5EA52660@p100.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BC4CE3.5EF912C0" Content-Length: 447 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 14:58:13 -0500 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC4CE3.5EF912C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC4CE3.5EF912C0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Warp Drive When.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 W0ludGVybmV0U2hvcnRjdXRdDQpVUkw9aHR0cDovL3d3dy5sZXJjLm5hc2EuZ292L1dXVy9QQU8v d2FycC5odG0NCg== ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC4CE3.5EF912C0-- From owner-starship-design Tue May 6 06:17 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["26815" "Tue" "6" "May" "1997" "08:12:16" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "497" "starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 71" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA00493 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 6 May 1997 06:17:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA00454 for ; Tue, 6 May 1997 06:16:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p47.gnt.com (p47.gnt.com [204.49.68.48]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA06664 for ; Tue, 6 May 1997 08:15:47 -0500 Received: by p47.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC59F5.A92BA280@p47.gnt.com>; Tue, 6 May 1997 08:15:29 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC59F5.A92BA280@p47.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 26814 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 71 Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 08:12:16 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: Chris W. Johnson [SMTP:chrisj@mail.utexas.edu] Sent: Monday, May 05, 1997 5:49 PM To: Single Stage Rocket Technology News Subject: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 71 From: hvanderbilt@BIX.com (hvanderbilt on BIX) Newsgroups: sci.space.policy Subject: Space Access Update #71, part 1 5/4/97 Date: 5 May 97 01:08:17 GMT Space Access Update #71, part 1 - 5/4/97 Copyright 1997 by Space Access Society _______________________________________________________________________ Yes, it's been six months since we put out an Update. We've delayed for a variety of reasons - we didn't want to get into detail on NASA X-33's problems while the coming year's funding was still vulnerable, for one. We were not, for that matter, completely agreed among ourselves on the nature and severity of the problems until quite recently. And frankly, we were more than a little burnt out after spending much of the last nine years working to bring SSTO to respectability. The urge was strong to tell ourselves everything was fine, we'd succeeded, we could pass the torch on to a new generation and go back to tending our own gardens. Alas, it looks as if what we started is now, left alone, as likely to discredit the whole idea of cheap access via fast-turnaround reusable rockets as to prove it. And the younger generation seems not yet totally cognizant of the nuances. So we're baaa-ack! And as long as we can't retire after all, we intend to have some fun. We're going to start with a two-part Update dedicated to what's been happening with X-33 this last year. This part 1 begins with a summary of our views, then covers X-33 configuration and technical issues. SAU #71 Part 2 will cover political and organizational aspects of X-33. _______________________________________________________________________ Disclaimers It's fifty years since the Cold War started, forty since Eisenhower warned of a "military industrial complex" threatening to become the tail wagging the dog, and well over thirty since NASA was founded and given responsibility for US civilian space exploration. Both NASA and the US government-aerospace complex have grown large, powerful, and inflexible in the decades since. Both have accumulated a lot of bad habits. It's not our job to reform NASA in all its widely distributed diversity. Nor is it our job to reform the US government-aerospace sector in general, nor Lockheed-Martin Corporation's particular collection of dubious practices. Nor for that matter is it our job to fix any of the other major government aerospace contractors' various failings. Life is too short. It is our job to promote radically cheaper, more reliable, widely available access to space, ASAP. Period. Any reforms we end up pushing, explicitly or by implication, are purely a means to that end. Anyone who doesn't want us pointing out places where their pursuit of organizational self-interest conflicts with the overall public interest can stop us easily: Clean up your act with regard to government reusable launch vehicle (RLV) R&D. We don't care what you do elsewhere. We do not claim to have a great deal of instant clout. What we have is a fundamentally sound idea, good information, better advisers, and a lot of persistance. The Administrator of NASA last fall accused us of "nipping at his heels" after we'd buttonholed him for several minutes about some of our concerns. Yes, sir, and proud of it - that's what we do. Occasionally, of course, we convince someone who does have clout to support us on one point or another... But mostly we persist. _______________________________________________________________________ X-33: One Year Later The best way to describe where we are is to go back over how we got here. It's all considerably clearer in hindsight... What follows is our analysis of the last year or so of the ongoing NASA X-33 process, based on information ranging from official published statements through reliable sources down to plausible rumor. We've spent a good bit of time working on this - we think we have a pretty accurate fit to the data. Your mileage may, of course, vary. Summary X-33 has serious problems. We think those problems mainly come from: - Inclusion of too many new technologies in what should have been a fast-turnaround lean operations demonstrator using mostly ready-to-go technology. Much of the new tech is having teething troubles. - Possible lack of commitment to project success (as opposed to bidding success) by Lockheed-Martin's top-level management, with consequent imposition of inappropriate project organization and inattention to adequate project support. There's also a certain amount of unsolicited inappropriate "help" (and occasional outright sabotage) from various other parts of NASA. We think X-33 can still end up being a useful proof-of-technology X-vehicle. The NASA people involved show some signs of learning from their experience. The key, in our opinion, is concentrating minds in Lockheed-Martin's top management on doing what it takes to significantly improve the odds of project success, while continuing to fend off extraneous "help" from elsewhere in NASA. We recommend a two-track policy toward this end. One, NASA HQ should maintain axe-poised oversight on X-33 cost, schedule, and technical milestones. The contractor has to be made to understand that they are in genuine danger of losing the project if they mess up too badly. The threatened cancellation of the "Clark" science satellite for exceeding Dan Goldin's new 15% cost overrun limit could help in this regard. Two, there should be credible and vigorous competition for the project, in DOD, NASA, or (preferably) both, to ensure that contractor top management understands that even if they get away with failing protractedly, they will not buy much extra time for their existing space launch cash cows. They must understand that their main option for remaining competitive in space launch past 2000 is to do what it takes to make X-33 succeed. Lest anyone take this as mindless attack rather than constructive criticism, we do support continued funding for X-33, pending the results of this spring's scheduled Critical Design Reviews, the final step before freezing the design and committing to construction. (We have however just heard that the CDR's have been postponed to allow more work on reducing the current X-33 design's 35% over-weight problem. We await the eventual CDR schedule and results with considerable interest.) _______________________________________________________________________ X-33 Technical Description And Current Status Last year we described Lockheed-Martin's winning X-33 design as the most "elegant" one submitted, the one that packs the most sophisticated components into the smallest most closely integrated package. This sounds wonderful - until you have to either compensate for components not turning out quite as well as you'd hoped (closely integrated means lots of interaction between the pieces; lots of other components are affected) or, once it's assembled, until you have to go back in to fix something. Small closely integrated packages are a royal pain in the butt to service. But NASA's Old Boy Net, bless their ivory-tower souls, think maximum new technology and "elegant" complexity are just peachy. (Increased operating complexity? No problem, we'll just pile on more guys with clipboards and checklists. They're on the payroll already anyway...) And NASA's Old Boy Net has, we've discovered repeatedly over the last year, a lock on the NASA source selection process. (More on that some other time - suffice it to say for now that NASA needs to take a serious look at how they might find truly impartial people to serve on selection boards.) (The White House, by the way, also had a hand in skewing the selection criteria toward excessive new tech, as part of the deal they made to allow project go-ahead - but it's unclear how much of those provisions originated there, and how much was whispered in their ear by the Old Boy Net.) But, we do have to admit, L-M's "VentureStar" X-33 design is indeed downright elegant. More important from our point of view, the various advanced technologies that have to come together to make VentureStar work - the aerospike engines, the multilobe composite tanks, the metallic thermal protection - all can be useful to other SSTO configurations, if as we suspect VentureStar turns out (even at best) less operationally flexible than optimum for a competitive general- purpose commercial space cargo ship. Enough cavilling. On to the design of this X-33 single-stage reusable space rocket demonstration vehicle. - Aerodynamics L-M's X-33 is a "lifting body", a blunt triangular wedge-shaped wingless vehicle that, when it is in horizontal aerodynamic flight, gets its lift largely from the airflow around the fuselage. X-33 is designed to takeoff vertically and fly into space under rocket power, then re-enter the atmosphere as a relatively high performance (high lift-to-drag ratio and thus high maneuverability, high "crossrange") hypersonic glider. Once slowed to subsonic speeds, it is designed to still have good enough glide characteristics to make an unpowered runway landing with reasonable reliability and safety. This combination of good hypersonic re-entry and subsonic glide performance is one of the keys to making this X-33 design work - L-M claims to have a proprietary aerodynamic shape that will provide both. This is one of the first places we come to where X-33 is running into problems. L-M may well end up meeting their aerodynamic performance claims - but it seems likely from the significant vehicle shape changes we've seen that L-M didn't know as much as they claimed back when they were bidding. The small tip fins of earlier iterations have grown to small wings, and the overall vehicle shape has changed markedly. More on this when we talk about the internal structures. - Engines This X-33 is powered by a pair of Rocketdyne "linear aerospike" rocket engines, burning liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid hydrogen (LH2). "Aerospike" is an unconventional type of rocket engine that gets thrust by expanding gases against the surrounding air (if any) and the outside of the engine, rather than against the inside as with conventional bell- nozzle rockets. A "linear aerospike" is one where the combustion chambers are arranged in two straight rows, one along each side of the wide base of a truncated-wedge aft-facing expansion surface, rather than in a circle around the base of a truncated-cone expansion surface (an "annular aerospike".) L-M chose linear aerospike engines primarily because they integrate well into the lifting-body vehicle shape chosen - they blend into the tail better and don't extend as far aft as bell-nozzle engines, reducing the center-of-gravity problem this sort of vehicle has from engine weight in the tail. The secondary reason was that aerospike engines provide good performance from sea-level to vacuum without either going to very high operating pressures (SSME's work at ~3000 psi, the X-33 aerospikes at around a third of that - high-pressure pumps tend to be heavy, fragile, or both) or mechanically changing the expansion nozzle geometry with altitude. Aerospike engines have never flown, but they have been built and run on ground test stands, the best-known occasion being in the early seventies when Rocketdyne did considerable work on linear aerospike as a potential Shuttle engine. After that fell through, the project was shelved until L-M settled on the concept for their X-33 bid. The X-33 engines are direct descendants of those 70's test-stand engines, with new combustion chamber feeds but otherwise little changed. (We hear Rocketdyne has had to track down and hire some of retirees from that project for their lost expertise.) The propellant pumps are still taken from the old Saturn 5 J-2 upper stage engine. Unlike the test stand versions, the plan is that X-33's engines will each produce about the same thrust as the J-2 bell-nozzle engine their pumps came from, something over 200,000 lbs thrust per engine. As best we can tell, the 70's tests used only part of the J-2 pumps' capacity. X-33's main method of steering in powered flight will be "thrust vectoring" via differential throttling of the engines - no mechanical gimballing. The main engine combustors are arranged in four rows or banks - looked at from the rear of the vehicle as it sits horizontally on a runway, the (horizontal) banks are top left, bottom left (left engine), top right, bottom right (right engine.) X-33 won't really have two completely separate engines; there will be side-to-side propellant cross-connects, both for side-to-side steering and so one set of pumps can feed both sets of combustors and keep the ship flying if the other pumpset fails. X-33 would be able to handle an engine-out at up to 90% propellant load, assuming the original planned vehicle weight and engine thrust values and a 20% power reserve on the pumps. X-33 thrust vectoring will be via diverter valves on each side between top and bottom banks, plus diverter valves between the two sides. This speeds response time and saves thrust-losses over throttling the pumps. We have heard Rocketdyne is having a hard time getting sufficient predicted thrust out of the X-33 engine design so far - we might hazard a guess this is related to the propellant plumbing in this application being far more complex than in the J-2 engine the pumps came from. There was a news item recently that Rocketdyne wants to eliminate the crossfeed ducting between the engines (and thus the engine-out capability) but that NASA won't let them - this could be related. L-M is also committed as part of their X-33 bid to have Rocketdyne produce and run a test-stand demo version of the 400,000 lb thrust super-lightweight linear aerospike engine for their proposed Venture Star commercial SSTO cargo transport. (Policy note: In large part, Lockheed-Martin won X-33 because their bid included enough money to develop and demonstrate these new engines. These engines are a major reason we still support X-33; they're applicable to a range of other potential vehicle configurations. We'd be very unhappy indeed to see either aerospike engine dropped from the project after they were major factors in L-M's winning the bid.) - Propellant Tanks X-33's propellant tanks are another significant new technology required to make the package work, and in this case we're pleased to report that from what we know, the tanks are coming along well. Some background... Generally, the largest single load rocket propellant tanks have to deal with is internal pressure. Even pump-fed rocket engines tend to need several tens of pounds of inlet pressure, and the propellant tanks have to handle that pressure over huge surface areas. You can keep a pressure tank extremely lightweight, as long as you have thin high tensile strength tank wall materials, and as long as you then don't fight a thin-walled tank's natural tendency to assume a round shape under internal pressure. Build your tank square and you'll need massive braces to keep it from inflating into a circle anyway when you pressurize it... So most rocket propellant tanks are "figures of rotation", shapes that are always circular in cross-section, with some mix of straight, conic, and spherical sections viewed from the side. The problem with this is that it limits what shape you can make your rocket and still keep the tanks light. For a circular cross-section rocket, no problem. For a squashed-wedge lifting body, well... The solution is something called a "multi-lobed" tank. A simple multi-lobed tank might be built up from two identical cylindrical tanks. Slice one-third off each tank lengthwise, then attach the pair of sliced tanks together side-to-side, butting together the openings where you took off the slices. You'll have one tank with two lobes, with a cross-section like a sideways "8". Put pressure in this tank, and it'll try to expand into an "O" - you have to add some sort of tension structure between the halves to hold the sides of the "8" together. Now you have a stable two-lobe tank. A lightweight stable two-lobe tank? Only if you can figure out how to build it without a heavy flange where the two halves and the tension tie join. These are non-trivial manufacturing problems; multi-lobed (two lobes is just the simplest case) propellant tanks have stayed on the wish-list till now. But they would be hugely useful in rocket lifting bodies and other non-circular vehicles... L-M has apparently solved the manufacturing problems. X-33 will have a pair of 4-lobed graphite-epoxy liquid hydrogen tanks (the LOX tank will be old-fashioned aluminum for now). The plan is to build the tanks in four sections, "fiber-placed" by machine on forms, with a border of "green" (unepoxied) fiber left on the mating edges. The edges of the sections will be "woven-Y" joined along with a centerline tension-tie truss, then epoxy-impregnated, then the entire tank will be place in a large autoclave (at least 15'x25'x40', our estimate of the tank dimensions) that Skunk Works just happens to have lying around, and the entire tank will be cured into one piece with no heavy flanges. As of last winter, the techniques had been tested on small sections and there seemed to be no show-stoppers. Cryogenic insulation and stiffeners (where required) will be on the outside of the tanks. - Structure Much of the elegance of L-M's X-33 design lies in the fact that it has very little structure per se. Of the four main structural elements, three are propellant tanks. The liquid oxygen (LOX) tank forms the ship's nose, the two liquid hydrogen (LH2) tanks are connected to the LOX tank to form the ship's two sides (with the payload bay in the space between them), and the aft ends of the LH2 tanks are connected to a cross-truss that also serves to mount the engines and various aerosurfaces. X-33 has no solid outer hull as such - just a relatively light assemblage of latticework and standoffs that carry the metallic thermal protection shingles that define the ship's aerodynamic shape. X-33 has been having serious weight-growth problems, however, and some of them relate to the structure. One problem is that thermal loads are turning out to be higher than anticipated, and the TPS shingle attach structures are getting heavier. Another seems to be that the aerodynamic shape has changed since the tank shapes were fixed, so considerably more standoff structure is required to make up the difference. And another is that the center-of-gravity ended up too far aft - engine weight growth? aerodynamic changes? weight of the larger aerosurfaces? - and (in the current design iteration at least) has to be compensated for by several thousand pounds of lead ballast in the nose. - Thermal Protection X-33 TPS is supposed to be advanced lightweight metallic "shingles" on a lightweight composite standoff structure. The shingles are supposed to be a thin metallic outer layer, over a honeycomb core for stiffness, with a bottom layer of ceramic insulation to reduce heat transmission to the interior of the ship. We understand there are problems with the TPS so far - details are sketchy. We mentioned heat loads to the standoff structure being higher than anticipated previously. We've also been told that inconel is being substituted for titanium aluminide for the shingle outer skins for cost reasons - this would account for some weight gain, as inconel is not light. We would guess that inconel foil outer skins would also have some durability problems, denting easily under raindrop impacts and such. We assume that inconel will be just a placeholder for X-33 and that any commercial followon would require the lighter stiffer TiAl - which we expect this X-33 program will still develop and test. - Flight Control Software X-33 flight control software has some difficult challenges to meet. In particular, on the ship's first flight the software will have to deal with keeping the ship stably on course through flight regimes where the engine efficiency and thrust-vectoring responsiveness won't be known precisely in advance. Part of the answer to this will be to increase use of the ship's aerosurfaces for steering while under power in the atmosphere. Part of the answer, we suspect, will be a lot of muttered prayers and crossed fingers for the first few minutes of flight #1... We are told that X-33 flight control software algorithms are being designed at NASA Marshall, that Allied Signal Corp is then coding them in C++ offsite, and that the code will then be tested at an Integrated Test Facility (an "iron bird" ground test rig) at Edwards AFB. This strikes us as a likely formula for Software Project Manager ulcers, late code, Ariane 5 style fly-sideways code, or all of the above. Software may yet end up as the long pole in the X-33 tent. We'll see. - Flight Test Ops The X-33 Cooperative Agreement calls for 15 flights starting in early 1999, culminating in several flights that will reach Mach 15 (about 60% of orbital speed) by late 1999. The agreement also calls for two two- day turnaround demos plus several more seven-day turnarounds. X-33 flights will launch from a site west of the Edwards dry lake bed, near the USAF Phillips Labs rocket test area. The X-33 will be returned after flights on the back of a NASA 747 "Shuttle Carrier Aircraft". The first two flights will cover ~100 miles, to Silurian Dry Lake Bed, reaching max speeds near Mach 4 and max altitudes near 116,000 feet. X-33's VTHL (vertical takeoff, horizontal landing) configuration makes any less drastic first flight very difficult - the vehicle needs considerable altitude and airspeed to safely make the transition to horizontal flight so it can land. Less risky incremental "bunny-hop" hover tests are right out. The next series of flights, ten max, will be to Michael Army Airfield at Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah, and will range from Mach 9-12 at up to 164,000 feet. The final series of up to three flights will be to Malmstrom AFB in Montana, covering ~1000 miles, reaching ~250,000 feet, at speeds of up to Mach 15 - if they manage to trim enough weight from the vehicle to make that performance. The current design iteration is projected to max out at Mach 13 or so. - Summing Up, part 1 The preceding isn't an attack on the competence of the working engineers actually trying to build and fly X-33. More on the engineer-management divide in part 2... As best we can tell, these problems are a mix of perfectly normal solvable teething troubles, plus the contractor top management's skewing the bid toward new technology for its own sake to win the bid, in turn a result of both the new-technology requirements the White House imposed before giving the go-ahead, and of NASA's new- technology uber-alles reflexes. There's also the contractor top management's possible lack of commitment to ensuring X-33 succeeds now that they've won the contract - more on that in part 2 also. Meanwhile, we find it more than a little ironic that, while X-33 still has a good chance of being a useful X-vehicle technology pathfinder, it is turning out to be a very poor "Y-vehicle" prototype for Lockheed- Martin's proposed Venturestar Shuttle replacement. X-33's problems point out graphically how much trouble Lockheed would have been in if they'd gotten what they were pushing for two years ago, government market guarantees for their going straight to developing Venturestar with no intermediate step. And yes, we told you so at the time, guys. ** continued in Space Access Update #71, part 2 ** -----------------------(SAS Policy Boilerplate)------------------------ Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication. Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for all, period. We believe in concentrating our resources at whatever point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal. Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the government to build and fly multiple quick-and-dirty high-speed reusable "X-rocket" demonstrators in the next three years, in order to quickly build up both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit (SSTO) technology. The idea is to reduce SSTO technical uncertainty (and thus development risk and cost) while at the same time increasing investor confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense as a private commercial investment. We're not far from that point. With luck and hard work, we should see fully-reusable rocket testbeds flying into space before the end of this decade, with practical radically cheaper orbital transports following soon after. Space Access Society won't accept donations from government launch developers or contractors - it would limit our freedom to do what's needed. We survive on member dues and contributions, plus what we make selling tapes and running our annual conference. Join us, and help us make it happen. Henry Vanderbilt, Executive Director, Space Access Society To join Space Access Society or buy the SSTO/DC-X V 3.1 video we have for sale (Two hours, includes all twelve DC-X/XA flights, X-33 bidder animations, X-33, DC-X and SSTO backgrounders, aerospike engine test- stand footage, plus White Sands Missile Range DC-X ops site footage) mail a check to: SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044. SAS membership with direct email of Space Access Updates is $30 US per year; the SSTO V 3.0 video is $25, $5 off for SAS members, $8 extra for shipping outside North America, US standard VHS NTSC only. __________________________________________________________________________ Space Access Society "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150 in the Solar System." Phoenix AZ 85044 - Robert A. Heinlein 602 431-9283 voice/fax www.space-access.org "You can't get there from here." space.access@space-access.org - Anonymous - Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this - - piece, including the copyright and this notice. All other rights - - reserved. In other words, crossposting, emailing, or printing this - - whole and passing it on to interested parties is strongly encouraged. - From owner-starship-design Thu May 8 08:04 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["31908" "Thu" "8" "May" "1997" "09:59:20" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "593" "starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 71, part 2" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA01295 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 May 1997 08:04:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA01258 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 08:04:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p64.gnt.com (p64.gnt.com [204.49.68.65]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA29499 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 10:04:25 -0500 Received: by p64.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC5B97.3011E640@p64.gnt.com>; Thu, 8 May 1997 10:04:16 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC5B97.3011E640@p64.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id IAA01266 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 31907 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 71, part 2 Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 09:59:20 -0500 Long experience has taught me not to believe in the limitations indicated by purely theoretical considerations. These - as we well know - are based on insufficient knowledge of all the relevant factors." Guglielmo Marconi -----Original Message----- From: Chris W. Johnson [SMTP:chrisj@mail.utexas.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 1997 4:39 PM To: Single Stage Rocket Technology News Subject: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 71, part 2 Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 23:16:55 -0700 (MST) From: Donald Doughty To: delta-clipper@world.std.com Subject: Space Access Update #71, part 2 5/6/97 (fwd) Reply-To: delta-clipper@europe.std.com >Subject: Space Access Update #71, part 2 5/6/97 Space Access Update #71, part 2 - 5/6/97 Copyright 1997 by Space Access Society _______________________________________________________________________ Yes, it's been six months since we put out one of these. This is part 2 of an Update dedicated to what's been happening with X-33 this last year. Look for SAU #72 with broader coverage, RSN - because there are a whole lot of things happening besides X-33. _______________________________________________________________________ X-33 Organization and Politics NASA has problems. As far as they're concerned, X-33 is far from the largest of these - between Station and Shuttle, they have bigger fish to fry, with troubles far more obvious and a whole lot more funding at stake. We take a somewhat different view, but then we would - we think cheap reliable transport is fundamental. Station in particular we see as massively transportation-constrained... X-33 we see as in real danger of failing - failing first flight, or turning into a "NASP II" technology playpen and never flying at all - in part because it was poorly-conceived (too many new bleeding-edge technologies included, too many Shuttle-replacement expectations tacked on, more a premature operational prototype "Y" vehicle than an experimental "X" ship) and in part because as best we can tell, the contractor top management has no urgent incentive to ensure that X-33 succeeds. Make no mistake, we'd like to see X-33 succeed. But if it does fail, we don't want to be hearing any nonsense about the failure proving SSTO can't work. Meanwhile, reforming NASA is not our job - our sole purpose is promoting affordable reliable access to space for all, ASAP, by whatever means will still let us sleep at night. But NASA's institutional problems do have a lot to do with what we see gone wrong with X-33. So, for that matter, do the institutional tendencies of the US aerospace industry in general and of Lockheed-Martin Corporation in particular. So we'll talk about these for a bit. Background: NASA and the Contractors Organizations are like people, in that they have histories, tendencies, habits, quirks - reasons for doing the things they do. NASA is a functionally and geographically diverse collection of "mature" government bureaucracies, warring with each other over turf and budget, reluctantly travelling in loose formation and paying attention to NASA HQ in Washington whenever they absolutely have to. (With the notable exception of Johnson Space Center (JSC), NASA's 800-pound manned-space gorilla, most of them have ended up paying considerably more attention to HQ since Dan Goldin took over.) Lockheed-Martin is a major government aerospace contractor, one of the final survivors of forty years of Cold War followed by eight years of "defense consolidation", operating in a current business climate where the stockmarket instantly punishes the slightest lapse of attention to next quarter's bottom line. Both organizations are pretty well set in their ways by now. Both do have a lot of good people doing the best jobs they can. Both also have some very predictable collective tendencies, tendencies that make sense in terms of institutional self-preservation but that, uh, aren't always in the best interests of the US taxpayers who foot the bills. - The Greying of NASA Aging bureaucracies are marked by a tendency to divert ever more of their resources into organizational structure and ever more of their efforts into defending their bureaucratic turf, to the detriment of whatever the nominal mission is supposed to be - in NASA's case, advanced space and aeronautical R&D, plus advanced space exploration. The limiting case for bureaucratic "maturity" is when output drops to the point where the bureaucracy is in danger of losing its funding. In NASA's defense, they're far from the worst mature federal bureaucracy in the US - the nature of NASA's missions are such that they attract a lot of talented people who get useful work done despite all the obstacles, and NASA's job is too high-profile for them to ever get away with zero (or even negative) output. Unlike some... But nevertheless, there's a lot of friction to overcome anytime something needs doing in NASA. Much of the agency, alas, is mainly concerned with making sure the paperwork proves nothing was anyone's fault, while marking time till retirement rolls around - totally averse to allowing anything risky (like flying real X-vehicles) anywhere nearby. - Turf Defense Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) work at NASA treads on all sorts of existing bureaucratic turf - Marshall and Stennis on engines, Michoud on tankage, Langley on vehicle configuration and aerodynamics... Most of these overlaps have been resolved, generally by farming out part of X-33 to the affected center - this has had its effect on the shape of the program, in general spreading it thinner and increasing costs. Shrug. This was likely inevitable once SSTO was assigned to NASA. The main conflict that hasn't been (and likely won't be) resolved is X-33's overlap with NASA's 800-pound manned-space gorilla's toes. Johnson Space Center in Houston is the center for manned space in NASA. Between Shuttle and Station, JSC at this point controls around a third of NASA's total budget. X-33 the way we originally envisioned it, as a harbinger of radically cheaper more frequent more widely available spaceflight, endangers JSC's entire way of life, built as it is around scarce, expensive, exclusive space access. The JSC manned-space mafia (by far the most powerful faction within NASA's Old Boy net) has reacted predictably, with a two-pronged effort to either capture X-33 and fit it into their existing structure, or to render it ineffectual. NASA HQ thus far has resisted outright JSC capture of X-33 - it continues to be run out of HQ and NASA Marshall, with JSC involved only in an advisory capacity. In particular, JSC's "man-rating" bureaucracy has been kept away from X-33, lest they triple the time and increase costs ten-fold - "man-rating" is the 1960-vintage process of ex post facto inspecting in quality to bring inherently 90% reliable artillery rockets up to 99% reliability so astronauts can ride them. A major point of X-33 is to bring inherent, by-design reliability up to several nines beyond 99%, rendering the whole "man-rating" process obsolete. The manned-space Mafia has had its effect, though, notably in the insertion of Shuttle-replacement prototype requirements into the X-33 CAN, trying to force-fit X-33 into their world. They're largely responsible too for the erroneous public impression that X-33 will lead directly to a Shuttle II, via repeated statements to that effect in the media, despite Administrator Goldin's repeated assurances to the contrary. There have also been a number of instances of what look like outright sabotage attempts against X-33 - statements to the media that flying X-33 over land is far too risky and the program should be converted to a series of ground technology demonstrations, press releases faxed (with a JSC fax number still listed on top, tsk tsk) to towns where X-33 environmental impact hearings were due, telling those towns X-33 would surely rain flaming death down on them... Naughty naughty, boys. - On to the Contractors US government aerospace contractors, meanwhile, have spent fifty years getting far too used to catering to a single customer with finicky tastes and bottomless pockets. Guessing what this customer really wants, promising it in spades regardless of actual current capabilities, then spending whatever it takes in money time and talent to deliver something more or less resembling what was promised - this has been a way of life for generations of executives and engineers. The corporate culture that has resulted is not well attuned to anything resembling an open commercial market. (It's not at all clear that any of the current major aerospace outfits will end up being major players in the 21st century spaceliner market. How many buggy manufacturers survived the jump to automobiles?) We'll digress for a moment to express our opinion of "defense consolidation". The US government, post-Cold War, has been pursuing the appallingly stupid policy of not only waiving antitrust, but actually twisting arms and paying cash to the former half-dozen or so major aerospace contractors, to encourage them to merge into two mega- contractors, on the dubious theory that this would encourage efficiency and save the government money. The practical result is that the US will very shortly be reduced to a grand total of two design bureaus capable of dealing with large complex aerospace systems. This is more massively monopolistically inefficient than the Soviets at their worst, and we're already reaping the harvest, with one of the soon-to-be-two remaining majors declining to bid on a multi-billion dollar NASA space operations contract. Rotsa ruck driving a hard bargain with the other one, guys. Where were we... Right. Meanwhile, Lockheed-Martin is, like most such organizations, sharply stratified into two layers - more than a little schizophrenic. At the top is the political-management level, VP's and up, of necessity obsessively concerned with "stockholder value", in turn closely linked to the coming quarter's profits. The carrot is the market value of their stock-options; the stick is that the big institutional stockholders, the huge pension and mutual fund managers, will turf their butts out if they don't deliver strong stock prices. The legendary Norm Augustine said a couple years back that if (then) Martin-Marietta could get a better return for investing in gravel pits than in space-launch vehicles (Martin had a construction materials subsidiary) he'd damn well invest in gravel pits. People at this level have no choice but to be "stockholder value" nuts - that's just the way it is in US business these days. Rocket nuts need not apply. The other, far larger, corporate level is the grunts, the troops, the hire-and-fire interchangeable cannon-fodder - the people who spend a lot of their lives doing viewgraph design studies for, say, rockets, who eventually, if they're very good and very lucky, get funding, get some semblance of a chance to actually build and fly something. Grunts, of course, have to work with whatever resources the political- management types will give them plus whatever they can scrounge - grunts who assume that management will as a matter of course back them with whatever they need tend to aquire ulcers and permanent puzzled expressions. Management has its own priorities, up to and including assigning grunts to projects that management in its heart does not give a damn about the success or failure of. Grunts have even been known to be fired for succeeding at projects management wanted to fail... But a true grunt says, screw management, flying rockets is what really counts, and runs for daylight if ever he is fortunate enough to glimpse it. The X-33 CAN We bitched about various things as NASA went though drafts of its proposed X-33 "Cooperative Agreement Notice". Some they acknowledged, some they didn't. In 20-20 hindsight, the most important points we made were these: Throwing in all the Shuttle II prototype requirements would drive up costs and risks; it was too soon for a prototype - what was needed was an X-vehicle. Insisting bidders cough up a share of the expenses for what was nominally an X-vehicle would inevitably drive them to figure out how to earn a near-term return from the project, given the profits-now orientation of today's corporate culture. And earning a near-term return is largely incompatible with the basic concept of an X-vehicle. The point of an X-vehicle project is to gather data as quickly and cheaply as possible on what happens when a given set of technologies are pushed to new limits. X-vehicles should have no mission but expanding the envelope and no payload but pilots and instruments. X-vehicles are essentially disposable; you build three because you expect to break one or two as you fly them and learn from them. AFTER you've built and flown an X-vehicle, THEN you know how to build and fly a prototype of something that will make money. But that takes too long for the market to wait for, typically three years for the X-vehicle and another three to five for the operational "Y-vehicle" prototype to follow. That's why we think the government has a legitimate role building X-vehicles - they're an investment that benefits the whole country, but the payoff takes too long for commercial financing in this impatient age. After X-vehicles have shown the way, then the commercial sector knows what it takes to build commercial ships. (And in case you're still wondering, no, X-33 is not a genuine X vehicle. It's a bastardized X-Y hybrid with a lot of marginally related ground technology projects grafted on. We hope a useful X-vehicle plus some useful new technology developments can still be salvaged.) NASA needs to keep this X-Y distinction carefully in mind in the future, in order among other reasons to avoid competing with private commercial efforts. A good rule of thumb: If it can be flying missions and making money in three years, it probably isn't "X" and NASA probably shouldn't be doing it. - X-33 Proprietary Rights: Results for One Meanwhile, NASA seems to have handed Lockheed-Martin far more in the way of X-33 proprietary rights than they should have, given that X-projects are supposed to benefit US industry in general and that we taxpayers are covering 80% of the tab. We hear conflicting reports on this, but the ones we trust most say that Lockheed-Martin has exclusive rights to much of the X-33 technology for several years after project completion. It's hard to say for sure though, since out of seventy or so pages in the actual signed X-33 cooperative agreement, NASA has only released about twenty. The rest is allegedly "proprietary" and hasn't been released. Including the progress payment and tech milestones schedule... (FOIA, anyone?) This makes it rather difficult for Congress to oversee the project, for one thing. For another, it seems likely that even if L-M succeeds with X-33, they could sit on the data until the government offers them a really favorable deal to build a followon. - The Contractor Contribution CAN-Can As we alluded to above, there was a provision of the X-33 CAN (Cooperative Agreement Notice, the document outlining competition requirements) that in hindsight is a classic example of The Law Of Unintended Consequences. We groused at the time about a major part of the competition being how deep each bidder would dig into their own pocket to build X-33 - we assumed that in the current US stockholder- value-uber-alles business climate, this would drive bidders to figure out how to show a near-term return on their X-33 investment, lest their boards fire them for incompetence. We lacked imagination - we assumed the bidders would do this by grafting a payload bay onto X-33 and use it, post-test, for popup launch of upper stage plus smallsat payloads. We worried that superimposing this operational requirement would complicate the program, increasing cost and time. And in fact all three X-33 bids did have some level of provision for a small payload bay... - Investing In The Future or Protecting The Present? What we overlooked was that X-33 was both a medium-term threat to existing corporate space-launch cashflows via its notional commercial followon, and also a big enough project that it was very likely to (and in fact did) soak up almost all available government RLV research money for an indefinite period. (We also assumed that the X-33 technology would be made available to US industry in general. The degree of proprietary rights L-M seems to have negotiated for their 20% of the cost astonishes us.) In other words, a clever bidder CEO could show his board a relatively near-term payoff from investing in X-33 even if it never flew a commercial payload, indeed even if that X-33 crashed on the first flight and never led to a commercial RLV followon. The near-term payoff for winning X-33? Protecting the winner's existing space-launch business against any low-cost RLV competition for a decade or more, by preventing any competitor taking X-33 and leveraging it into an eventual successful commercial RLV. The X-33 bidder contributions proposed were in fact roughly proportional to each bidder's existing annual space-launch cashflow. Lockheed-Martin has half of the United Space Alliance Shuttle consortium, plus Titan 4, Commercial Atlas, LMLV, their Russian Proton marketing partnership - something over three billion dollars of annual cashflow. Lockheed- Martin put up about $250 million toward X-33. Rockwell had the other half of Shuttle plus Rocketdyne's expendable engine business, something over one billion a year, about a third of Lockheed-Martin's launch cashflow, and we understand that Rockwell bid a bit over one-third what Lockheed-Martin did as their proposed share of X-33. - Mac-Dac Folds McDonnell-Douglas meanwhile had about 3/4 billion a year cashflow from their Delta II operation, but put up essentially nothing in their X-33 bid. This looked like overconfidence at the time - they did have the best proposal technically, operationally, and in terms of development team experience - but in hindsight it was probably another symptom of Mac-Dac top management's since-apparent fixation on cashing out their company ASAP at the highest possible price. This also explains our (and others) ongoing frustration with Mac-Dac top management: It was clear to us that with DC-X/Delta Clipper they had the inside track on becoming the Boeing of next decade's commercial spaceliner business - but they repeatedly ignored opportunities to strengthen their position, and ultimately blew themselves out of the race. Apparently they simply didn't care about the company's long term future. - And the Winner Is... Anyway, one of the things this extra available money let Lockheed-Martin do was include significantly more new technology work in their bid than their competitors, notably including flightworthy aerospike engines for their X-33, plus a promise of ground tests of a boilerplate version of the larger engine for their proposed Venture Star commercial RLV. NASA loves new advanced technology development, and they're inclined to see more as better even in a project that doesn't really call for it. We'd thought X-33 was supposed to be a reusable rocket fast-turnaround operations demonstrator, not a new technology driver... Oh well. At least we're supposed to get useful new engines out of this. Other factors contributed to Lockheed-Martin's win - they played the NASA selection process like a violin, with a bid carefully tailored to match NASA's Shuttle-shaped vision of the notional future X-33 derived RLV, with CAN details fortuitously changing to better match their bid, with a corporate head of RLV who just happened to be the former Shuttle mission commander of NASA's RLV boss. Lockheed-Martin won 67% of the government projects they bid on in 1996, and we're told over 80% by contract value. They're *good* at the bidding game. Maybe not so good at delivering the goods on cost and on time afterwards - F-22, THAAD, LMLV.... but they do win bids. But the largest single factor in their winning X-33, in our estimate, was that they could justify to their directors bringing more money to the table in order to protect their existing space-launch cashflow - purely an unintended consequence of X-33's bidder-contribution requirement and its sole-major-RLV-project monopoly status. Live and learn - and we hope NASA does learn. "Future X" should be set up so there's never just one project eating most of the funding. Or if that's completely unavoidable, at least set up the bidding so track record and technical preparation count for more than ready cash. - ...Lockheed-Martin, By A Split Decision Meanwhile, last July, Lockheed-Martin had just been announced as the surprise winner of X-33. The surprise winner, for a couple of reasons: One, Lockheed-Martin's configuration was probably the least suitable of the three for future fast-turnaround flexible-basing commercial operations, what we'd thought X-33 was supposed to demonstrate. Rockwell demonstrated considerably more effort toward minimizing the ground establishment required for their (much simpler) VTHL vehicle, while Mac-Dac led the field, having concentrated on these qualities from the start. L-M's however was best suited of the three to drop into the current Shuttle operation with minimal layoffs, in our cynical opinion. It was heavily sold that way; the promo graphics always showed it docking with Station, for instance - but then if NASA allowed that to affect their selection process, it's NASA's fault, not Lockheed-Martin's. (We strongly recommend NASA take a serious look at recruiting source selection board members from outside the NASA-Academia Old Boy Net.) - Not Ready For Prime Time Two, Lockheed-Martin was as best we can tell the least prepared of the three bidders to go ahead and actually build an X-33. You'll recall that by our analysis Lockheed-Martin's main reason to put significant funds into X-33 was to protect their existing launch business - we have strong indications Dan Tellep and Norm Augustine were actually thinking along those lines, by the way - and thus could reach a major (if not the major) goal just by winning the bid then sitting on it. If true, this just might adversely affect the quantity, quality, and timeliness of corporate resources available to the actual X-33 team within Lockheed-Martin - the company has plenty of other projects, most where they're not already locked into a win-win setup and many where they can make actual profits. Why give X-33 one bit more access to finite corporate resources than required to keep NASA from firing Lockheed-Martin and starting over fresh? Numerous indications we've gotten since the X-33 downselect support this hypothesis. Both before and after the downselect, Lockheed-Martin seems to have been allocating the bare minimum resources necessary to win and then to keep the project. One example: The LASRE SR-71 borne 1/10th scale transonic-airflow aerospike-rocket efficiency tests. This project was touted as part of L-M's bid, as providing essential performance data for aerospike engines operating at low supersonic airspeeds, data not currently known to any great precision. LASRE was originally supposed to fly before the downselect. Last fall, NASA informed Lockheed-Martin that A: NASA still expected LASRE results, but B: not one more cent of NASA money was going into it. A year late now, LASRE is still ticking over, still not due to fly till months from now - if ever. As best we can tell what happened to LASRE, L-M assigned people to it who had to learn on the job how to build a complex rocket combustor test rig reliable enough to bolt onto the back of an irreplaceable Mach 3 aircraft, and apparently has since put the minimum necessary resources into LASRE to avoid the embarrassment of formally shutting it down. Mind, there's nothing wrong with on-the-job training for engineers - but it shouldn't be misrepresented as a tight-schedule sure thing. Another example is flight control software. McDonnell-Douglas as we understand it had 80% of their X-33 software already running, with a proven fast and reliable development setup already in place, using a high-level language the flight control engineers could work with directly - a result of their DC-X experience. Rockwell showed us what they described as a prototype of their flight control software hooked into a mission simulator at their X-33 bid open house last spring. Lockheed-Martin seems to have started hiring on programmers after winning the bid last July... We heard stories of programmers looking to bail back out of the project shortly thereafter, for what it's worth - we have no confirmation on that story. But it is true that top programmers these days can afford to be picky about what projects they stay involved in. More serious (if true) are the recent rumors coming out of L-M that the flight control software could be a year or more late. Again, we don't have hard confirmation of this - but it fits with what we know about software development in general and Lockheed-Martin's X-33 flight control software setup in particular. - Dat Organization, Dis Organization We pointed out last year that Lockheed-Martin was touting their X-33 bid as a "Skunk Works" project, but had meanwhile spread the project out all over the map, to gain support for the bid within the newly-merged Lockheed and Martin corporations, to gain support within NASA, and also presumably to get closer to the "contractor in every congressional district" ideal for a high-profile federally funded program. Mac-Dac and Rockwell both seemed to be operating closer to the old all- key-people-under-one-roof Skunkworks paradigm. Mac-Dac in particular had already proven they had a tightly integrated fast-moving "skunkworks" design shop via the DC-X and DC-XA efforts. We've been assured that all the various X-33 contractor divisions and NASA shops are working together in one harmonious "skunky" whole. We remain skeptical, given the hints that has come out of the program so far. Ultimately, of course, results are what count. We'll see. - Summing up We're reasonably sure Lockheed-Martin wasn't all that well prepared when they won X-33. They showed signs of scrambling to hire enough pegs to fill the holes right through last fall. Their project organization still looks more widely dispersed than optimal. And their design shows signs of not having been as refined as it should have been at the time of the downselect. In our experience, two things can happen to a project with this sort of start. The confusion can settle down into order and converge on a workable design. Or it can bog down and diverge into chaotic thrashing, with results at best a crude and unwieldy approximation of the original objective. We thing the thing to do about X-33 for now is to wait on the results of the CDR's, the Critical Design Reviews. The project is looking for a little extra time to get their act together; within reason they should get it. We don't expect X-33 on time or on budget at this point anyway. We do expect that X-33 will fly in 1999. We also expect that if it runs over budget, the overage will come out of Lockheed-Martin's collective pocket, in cash, in reversion of proprietary rights to the government, or both. We also expect that Lockheed-Martin will deliver on the various new technologies they promised to win the bid, or pay for the difference. If the CDR's don't clearly show convergence on a workable design, if the project runs significantly over budget and Lockheed-Martin refuses to pay in cash or kind, if Lockheed-Martin tries to renege on any of the major elements of their bid - we say kill the project and start it over as a genuine X-vehicle project. We've spent a long time working on this. A few more years to get things right won't kill us. Meanwhile we recommend axe-poised NASA oversight plus strong external competition (more on that in SAU #72) to concentrate minds in Lockheed- Martin's top management on ensuring X-33 success, by removing their win- by-failing option. X-33 at best will still be more an overpriced premature prototype than a genuine affordable-risk X-vehicle, but it's currently the only project we've got, and it could still be pretty useful. The industry as a whole could still get major chunks of useful new technology, and Lockheed- Martin could end up with a design team that's learned how to do it right next time. Despite the current "management" fad for treating the techies as disposable interchangeable parts, a proven experienced design team is a valuable commodity, a whole greater than the sum of its parts. Spending what it takes to make X-33 fly could yet turn out to be the best investment Lockheed-Martin could make for the coming century. -----------------------(SAS Policy Boilerplate)------------------------ Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication. Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for all, period. We believe in concentrating our resources at whatever point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal. Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the government to build and fly multiple quick-and-dirty high-speed reusable "X-rocket" demonstrators in the next three years, in order to quickly build up both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit (SSTO) technology. The idea is to reduce SSTO technical uncertainty (and thus development risk and cost) while at the same time increasing investor confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense as a private commercial investment. We're not far from that point. With luck and hard work, we should see fully-reusable rocket testbeds flying into space before the end of this decade, with practical radically cheaper orbital transports following soon after. Space Access Society won't accept donations from government launch developers or contractors - it would limit our freedom to do what's needed. We survive on member dues and contributions, plus what we make selling tapes and running our annual conference. Join us, and help us make it happen. Henry Vanderbilt, Executive Director, Space Access Society To join Space Access Society or buy the SSTO/DC-X V 3.1 video we have for sale (Two hours, includes all twelve DC-X/XA flights, X-33 bidder animations, X-33, DC-X and SSTO backgrounders, aerospike engine test- stand footage, plus White Sands Missile Range DC-X ops site footage) mail a check to: SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044. SAS membership with direct email of Space Access Updates is $30 US per year; the SSTO V 3.0 video is $25, $5 off for SAS members, $8 extra for shipping outside North America, US standard VHS NTSC only. __________________________________________________________________________ Space Access Society "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150 in the Solar System." Phoenix AZ 85044 - Robert A. Heinlein 602 431-9283 voice/fax www.space-access.org "You can't get there from here." space.access@space-access.org - Anonymous - Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this - - piece, including the copyright and this notice. All other rights - - reserved. In other words, crossposting, emailing, or printing this - - whole and passing it on to interested parties is strongly encouraged. - From owner-starship-design Sat May 24 19:34 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["34749" "Sat" "24" "May" "1997" "21:32:52" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "670" "starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 72" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA05398 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 24 May 1997 19:34:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA05383 for ; Sat, 24 May 1997 19:34:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p116.gnt.com (p116.gnt.com [204.49.68.117]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA11288 for ; Sat, 24 May 1997 21:34:14 -0500 Received: by p116.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC688A.33A10F20@p116.gnt.com>; Sat, 24 May 1997 21:34:04 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC688A.33A10F20@p116.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id TAA05389 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 34748 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 72 Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 21:32:52 -0500 Long experience has taught me not to believe in the limitations indicated by purely theoretical considerations. These - as we well know - are based on insufficient knowledge of all the relevant factors." Guglielmo Marconi -----Original Message----- From: Chris W. Johnson [SMTP:chrisj@mail.utexas.edu] Sent: Friday, May 23, 1997 7:55 PM To: Single Stage Rocket Technology News Subject: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 72 Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 16:27:23 -0700 (MST) From: Donald Doughty To: delta-clipper@world.std.com Subject: Space Access Update #72 5/23/97 (fwd) Reply-To: delta-clipper@world.std.com Space Access Update #72 5/23/97 Copyright 1997 by Space Access Society ________________________________________________________________________ We're once again concentrating on the government end of the cheap launch business, not because that's the only place things are happening - far from it! - but because things are happening in the government end that need immediate attention from us activists. The commercial startups that we, honest, will tell you about RSN, are for the moment taking care of their own business, preparing to build and fly low-cost space launch vehicles in the next couple of years, with no need for anything from outside but investment. We can but envy them - at least until they are ready to fly; then they'll need all the help they can get to make sure they aren't grounded by inappropriate regulation. More on that RSN... ________________________________________________________________________ Stories this issue: - SAU #71 "X-33 Special Issue" Followup: Corrections, NASA Source Selection Comments Clarification - X-33 News: Organizational Changes for NASA RLV Office, Emergency Weight-Control "Tiger Team" Redesign Commences In Palmdale - After X-33, What? NASA "Future X" Organization Proposals - House Authorizes Major New SSTO X Vehicle Funding in HR 1275 - Signs Of Life In USAF: "Integrated Concept Team" Starts Defining Future Space Sortie Needs - Phillips Labs Begins Ground "Integrated Technology Testbed" Project - SAS Alert: DOD Reusable Rocket Funding Needs Support ________________________________________________________________________ X-33 Special Issue (SAU#71) Followup My. We'd almost forgotten what it's like to go public with a controversial position. We've gotten all sorts of interesting feedback (much of it supportive) regarding our assertion that the X-33 project has problems and our recommendation that a combination of axe-poised oversight and vigorous external competition be applied. For the record, we don't toss rocks into people's ponds because we enjoy it, even though it may seem that way to the people getting splashed. We do it when we see it as necessary to our job, pushing for radically cheaper access ASAP, and when we do, we try to be careful what we say and how we say it. Of course, sometimes we screw up anyways - we express a delicate point poorly, or we just flat out make an error of fact. We do have a couple of likely factual errors to 'fess up to from the special X-33 SAU #71, plus some clarification on a critical point. - Rockwell X-33 Bid First, we're told by someone who should know that Rockwell's X-33 bid actually included closer to two-thirds the ~$250m overall corporate contribution of Lockheed-Martin's winning bid, not one-third as we wrote in SAU #71. So much for neat mathematical correspondences between current spacelaunch cashflow in need of protection and proposed X-33 contributions... On the other hand, existing spacelaunch (their half of the USA Shuttle operations partnership, ongoing Shuttle orbiter upgrades, Rocketdyne's engine business) was proportionally a far more important part of the then-Rockwell aerospace division's business. - TPS Change Correction We mentioned Titanium Aluminide (TiAl) composite as a thermal protection system "shingle" surface (the NASP X-30 program did some work on the material) that was being dropped from X-33 for budgetary reasons. We're left somewhat puzzled, because our original source was both in a position to know, and definite on TiAl being dropped in favor of inconel metal on some of the shingles for cost reasons. But we've since been told, also by someone in a position to know, that what's actually happening is that the original plan called for two types of metallic TPS shingles, inconel-surfaced for the higher temperature areas, and plain-titanium surfaced (not TiAl composite) for the lower- temperature areas on the vehicle's re-entry leeside, and that the cost- reduction change is to replace some or all of the leeside titanium shingles with existing-technology fiber thermal protection blankets. It would be a lot easier to evaluate this sort of thing if all 48 pages of X-33 technical details in the NASA-LockMart Cooperative Agreement weren't being kept unavailable to us mere taxpayers. We do note that the two stories are not actually mutually exclusive - both may well have a basis in fact. And now you know what we know on this... - NASA Source Selection Criticism Clarification & Editorial Rant Next, the clarification: We mentioned NASA's source selection process several times in SAU #71. We quote ourselves: "And NASA's Old Boy Net has.. ...a lock on the NASA source selection process. ...NASA needs to take a serious look at how they might find truly impartial people to serve on selection boards." .(Lockheed-Martin) played the NASA selection process like a violin, with a bid carefully tailored to match NASA's Shuttle-shaped vision of the notional future X-33 derived RLV..." "...but then if NASA allowed that to affect their selection process, it's NASA's fault, not Lockheed-Martin's. (We strongly recommend NASA take a serious look at recruiting source selection board members from outside the NASA-Academia Old Boy Net.)" Apparently our saying these things has caused some - consternation? Perhaps "annoyance" is a better word - at NASA. Looking back over what we said, we stand by it - but we left something implied that needs to be made explicit, something that believe it or not we've been soft- pedalling these last few years, in the hope that quiet diplomacy would help. Quiet diplomacy, alas, seems to have gotten us nowhere. - Editorial Rant We won't go into detail - too many sources in and out of NASA could get into hot water. We will simply say that over the last few years we have bit by bit accumulated very, very good reason to believe that people making the decisions at NASA reject wingless vertical landing (VL) as an RLV research option on a largely emotional knee-jerk basis. People at NASA now blame this on all the harangueing they've seen from VL advocates; VL advocates will tell you they only spoke their piece so loud and often because NASA wasn't listening in the first place. At this point it doesn't matter who started it. What matters is that the nation's official lead reusable space transportation R&D agency is arbitrarily refusing to consider seriously a technical option that has significant potential advantages in minimizing both ground support and turnaround time - advantages very much needed (however achieved) both for genuine competitive commercial operations and for pressing near- future national security missions. We see no further point in trying to convince NASA. We've seen them ignore what multiple sources tell us was the operational and managerial frontrunner in the initial X-33 source selection evaluations, in favor of a weaker proposal that has since begun to graphically demonstrate its weaknesses, for stated reasons that don't make a great deal of sense to us. More recently we've seen them claiming repeatedly they can be trusted to handle defence RLV R&D too, even as they pay no more than lip-service to dispersed operations and low-cost fast turnaround (measured in hours not days) - major defense RLV needs. We've seen multiple other assorted ugliness as various bits of NASA ground their local axes at the expense of cheap access. Enough. We hope NASA will learn from X-33 and X-34. We stand ready to support them in salvaging what they can of their current RLV efforts, and in moving forward into a more focussed and useful ongoing space X-vehicle program (See "Future X" story later this issue.) But as far as we're concerned, NASA has made it unmistakeably clear that trusting them as sole custodian of the nation's reusable launch R&D effort is unwise. We think they require institutional competition, both to keep them honest and to cover their blind spots. We think the Defense Department is the place for this competition. We think that something approximating an 80:20 split between NASA and DOD of (increased) overall Federal RLV R&D funding would support this competition without contradicting the current Administration policy of NASA being the lead agency for such work. In this time of shrinking overseas presence and growing overseas commitments, DOD is coming to realize they will soon need affordable fast-turnaround space sortie capability for far more than routine satellite launch. We intend to work for a limited DOD program to look at key space sortie technologies, because we think NASA can't/won't do it, and because we think the benefits spread well outside DOD. Fedex, for instance, has needs a lot closer to DOD's than to NASA's... NASA in fact has serious problems with their source selection process. X-33 was relatively mild; nothing illegal or massively unethical as far as we can tell, just a half-dozen of the Old Boys picking the wrong ship for the wrong reasons. We've seen and heard of far worse elsewhere in NASA; we recommend reform - but reforming NASA is not our job. Getting radically cheaper access to space ASAP is. ________________________________________________________________________ Emergency X-33 "Tiger Team" Review Underway Projected X-33 weight has grown to the point where it's beginning to look like the ship could have problems flying the planned high-speed test distance. The aerodynamic design seems to be getting steadily more complex and difficult. A number of the new technologies included in the package, uh, look like costing more and taking longer than expected. To some degree, these are all predictable events in the design process of an experimental high-performance aerospace vehicle. They don't always happen, but they often do, and they're often overcome. NASA is however taking X-33's problems seriously enough to have initiated a "tiger-team" review of the project. The entire NASA HQ X-33 program office has flown out to Palmdale and will spend the next month in a no-holds-barred effort to trim excess weight and, we suspect, to thrash out how much downscoping of the original configuration might be acceptable. We remind everyone involved that too many pieces dropped from the package of new technologies that helped win the source selection could cause mutterings of "bait and switch" and erosion of political support for project funding, absent significant contractor concessions elsewhere. And we wish everyone involved whatever mix of strong coffee and fresh insight it takes to make this project fly after all. (Sleep deprivation is inspirational, honest!) Good luck, guys. ________________________________________________________________________ NASA RLV Organizational Changes Gary Payton's Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) office at NASA HQ has been kicked around a bit over the last year. They started out in NASA HQ "Code X", the Office of Space Access & Technology, under an Associate Administrator, Dr. Jack Mansfield. Code X was eliminated in an HQ reorganization last year, and RLV was moved over to "Code R", NASA's advanced aeronautics division, with provision for Payton to report directly to Administrator Goldin. The latest change as we understand it involves Payton reporting to the head of Code R, Associate Administrator Robert Whitehead, rather than directly to Goldin. We're not sure the direct report to Goldin was ever official in any case. ________________________________________________________________________ After X-33, What? NASA "Future X" Proposals NASA has a problem with RLV work in the future: Currently, there's about $100 million a year budgeted for baseline technology work, and perhaps three times that for one major RLV project, X-33. Once X-33 is done a couple years from now (or, we might add, if it's cancelled before then) on current plans the RLV budget drops back to ~$100 million per year total, possibly less, depending on the level of pressure on NASA's overall budget. Even we will concede that $100 million a year is not enough for NASA to get much useful RLV work done. Possibly if that entire amount were given to a lean, aggressive, low-overhead, relaxed-purchase-regs outfit for four or five years, we might see a useful near-orbital X-vehicle come of it. But while NASA RLV is showing some promising signs of understanding how to work lean and aggressive, nothing done in NASA is low-overhead these days, and the purchasing paperwork is waived for nobody when the checks have eight zeroes on 'em. If NASA RLV is to accomplish anything significant once they've gotten past their current learning experiences, they'll need more funding. NASA's initial response to this problem was to propose the X-37, an X-33 followon whose sole consistant characteristic has been that it would cost about as much per year as X-33. All else was flexible - rocket, airbreathing, winged, VTVL... NASA fairly obviously preferred a sexy airbreathing hypersonic version, but X-37 was sold as whatever flavor X- vehicle people might support funding for. We came to call it the X-37 FCV among ourselves, the "Funding Continuity Vehicle". Someone in NASA noticed that X-37 had aquired too much baggage, and the designation has now been officially abandoned. We had a couple problems with X-37 as it stood. The airbreathing "combined-cycle" engine technology showed no sign of being ready in the proposed timeframe. Initial subscale flight tests of bits of the technology won't even start for another year or two, in the "Hyper-X" program - which as a series of innovative quick-and-cheap experimental flight test vehicles, we strongly support, by the way. Though we suspect that the data from Hyper-X will support our contention that airbreathing as a way to cut costs over reusable rockets is a chimera - but that's an argument for another day... In any case, we felt that it's a mistake to count on non-existant engines for an X-vehicle project; waiting for working engines tends to defeat the whole fast- paced purpose of X, dragging out schedules and multiplying costs NASP-style. We also felt, and still feel, that putting all of NASA's eggs into a single-design, single-vehicle project was a mistake with X-33 and would be a mistake for any followon. We've seen the position that capture of a single-design X-33 has put NASA in - Administrator Goldin felt compelled to state in public last week that progressive Shuttle upgrades from LockMart's competitor BoMacRock look like offering at least as much future NASA cost savings as LockMart's idea of an X-33 derived Shuttle replacement. Presumably this was a message to Lockhed-Martin. We see no reason to believe that putting the bulk of NASA's RLV R&D money into another winner-take-all project will work out any better than it has to date in the first such - the main question will be which of the big two will get the option to sit on a monopoly and protect the status quo next time. We believe that NASA needs to do multiple X- projects within the available budget - realistically speaking, within something not a whole lot more than the current ~$400 million a year. We believe NASA can actually fit multiple useful space X-projects within such a budget, by dint of one change from the current X-33 model: Don't tag new-tech developments onto such projects. Do new-tech, yes, but as separate items in the background, to be incorporated in future flight vehicle projects once they're ready. Depending on who you ask, the actual cost of the current X-33 flight vehicle is between half and two-thirds the $1.2 billion total. The rest is going for developing new technologies - engines, TPS, tanks... Useful new technologies, yes, but none of them essential to X-33's mission of finding out what it takes to repeatedly fly a near-orbital reusable rocket. All of these new technologies are appropriate things for NASA to be doing - in the background, as ground-development items, at a relaxed pace and at relatively smaller annual cost, to be used in flight vehicles only when they're ready. Given this change, given a modest increase in current NASA RLV funding, given attention to staggering start-dates so peak funding requirements don't coincide, NASA can afford to keep a couple of X-33-class integrated flight-vehicle projects underway at any given time, plus a larger number of relatively cheap single-technology flight test projects, plus an steady ongoing ground-development program to bring advanced new technologies to the point where they're ready to fly. Miracle of miracles, the people at NASA RLV more or less agree with us - the preceding is essentially what they briefed to the head of Code R and to the Administrator as "Future X" last month. (Please don't fire them for agreeing with us!) "Future X" makes the somewhat optimistic assumption that their funding can grow ~50% to $600 million a year by FY 2000. We suspect a ~25% increase over current FY'97 RLV levels to ~$500 million is actually quite realistic, given both the easing Federal budget crunch and the importance of hi-tech R&D. (And who knows, $600 million might happen.) Future X then looks at spending that money in three tiers, starting with about $150 million a year in an ongoing Advanced Space Technology Program, ASTP, doing development and ground test of new technologies in structures, tanks, engines, thermal protection, avionics/software, and operations. The next tier is about $100 million a year in "Pathfinder" flight demonstrations. Pathfinder projects are defined as narrow-focus demos of single high-risk, high-payoff technologies, flying in less than two years for less than $100 million total - generally a lot less. Hyper-X (four rocket-boosted subscale hypersonic airbreather test vehicles for about $100 million total) is an example of a top-end Pathfinder project, while a proposed demo of a 4000 degree hafnium diboride sharp leading- edge sample on a classified DOD reentry vehicle for a couple of million dollars is typical of the bottom end. The next tier is "Trailblazer" integrated flight demonstrations: X-vehicles. If costs can in fact be kept down to the $500 million to $600 million range by leaving out the new-tech tag-ons, NASA could afford to keep one and a half to two such projects underway continuously, starting a new one every two to three years. There are a couple points about "Future X" we're not entirely thrilled with. "Verify... ...business viability of integrated technologies" makes us nervous, given how badly undue weight to a very hypothetical "business plan" is turning out in X-33. We've said it before - NASA really isn't playing their strong suit when they try to evaluate "business viability". Better stick to demonstrating potentially useful operations and let the businessmen worry about business viability, guys. "Costs shared with end-users" makes us a bit nervous too - again, if you're flying an X-vehicle, it's not all that clear yet who the end- users will be. Yes, there's a case to be made for the winning bidder coughing up a share of the costs - if they succeed, they may well have a couple years head-start on a new market, what with having the only team with hands-on experience working for them. But we've seen the distorting effect combining cost-sharing with an effective monopoly can produce - cost-sharing needs to be very much deemphasized if the winning bidder has succeeded merely by taking the bid. But overall, "Future X" looks like an effective direction for NASA Reusable Launch R&D to take on the (by government standards) limited funding likely to be available. We endorse the plan, and we intend to work toward funding it. ________________________________________________________________________ House Authorizes Major New SSTO X Vehicle Funding in HR 1275 Briefly, the House NASA Authorization bill this spring contained a surprise: Significant funding, in the hundreds of millions, for a followon to X-33. It's a long way from this to a final appropriation bill signed by the President, but it's a major step in the direction of properly funding "Future X". There are a couple problems with the precise languge of the bill. It calls for a single winner-take-all project again, which as previously noted we do not think is the best approach. It also calls for this single project to include technologies "more advanced than" those in X-33, which we also think may not be the best approach, given that a significant part of X-33's current problems stem from inclusion of new technologies not yet quite ready for flight. And in fact, Aviation Week editorialized "An X-33 Followon? Aim Lower Technically" in their May 5th issue. These problems can be ironed out though as the budget process grinds forward. What's truly significant here is the broad Congressional support evidenced for continuing RLV R&D funding at NASA. Our congratulations to the Space Subcommittee people who made this happen. ________________________________________________________________________ USAF ICT Study The US Air Force did a remarkable thing last winter: It put together an "Integrated Concept Team" from across the various affected USAF commands to look at how the USAF should be using space over the next few decades, beyond the obvious step of getting current satellite launch costs down. The ICT spent a lot of time examining "space sortie" concepts, potential missions where the ability to pop into or through space briefly, on short notice at an affordable cost, might enhance national security. Given the current trend of falling budgets, reduced force structure, reduced overseas basing, but level or increased overseas commitments, the ability to affordably be anywhere in the world from mainland US bases on an hour's notice is understandably attractive. The key word here though is "affordable" - military space sortie vehicles have been looked at since the forties; the conclusion has generally been "not yet", either because the technology just wasn't ready yet, or more recently because the technology to do it was just too damn expensive. (We suspect strongly that some of the unidentified aerospace vehicle sightings of the last decade add up to an experimental seventies-technology "black" space sortie vehicle that turned out to be impossibly expensive to operate. But that's only an educated guess.) What's changed recently is that the current state of the art in reusable rockets actually gives some hope of flying space sortie missions affordably - IE, less expensively than the overseas-based reconaissance and strike assets they'd replace, or cost-effectively in the case of new capabilities they'd bring. Looking at articles that have appeared in the open press and reading between the lines, the ICT seems to have taken a serious look at the possibility of multi-role reusable rocket vehicles that could make orbit single-stage with a relatively small, couple of thousand pounds payload, or could alternatively carry a much larger payload onto a suborbital trajectory then land a few thousand miles downrange - this larger payload could be a reconaissance sensor package, an orbital payload with an appropriate "kick" stage, or any number of other things worth delivering precisely over long distances on short notice. "Packages of military significance", as one gentleman put it - though it should be noted that sometimes delivering the right two pound spare part to the far side of the world on a couple hours notice is far more militarily significant than delivering thousands of times that weight of ordnance. "Amateurs talk weapons and tactics, professionals talk logistics." Be that as it may, the USAF is now seriously considering these possibilities for the first time in a while. The process grinds slowly though; official USAF requests for long-lead R&D funding are still likely a year or two away. But it's a start. ________________________________________________________________________ Phillips Labs ITT Meanwhile, our old friends at USAF Phillips Labs are making the best of the $10 million which was all we ended up able to pry loose for them last year, after DC-XA went down. They've allocated $8 million of that to start up an Integrated Technology Testbed (ITT), a ground test rig that will combine computer simulation and generic reusable rocket space- sortie vehicle components. The idea is to then repeatedly test different combinations of hardware and software on the cheap, to wring out bugs and learn as much as possible ahead of any future space-sortie flight vehicle project decision. Obviously on $8 million, there's going to be mainly simulation software and not a lot of test hardware in the loop. The project managers are realistic about the funding uncertainties; they've set things up so they'll be able to scale the project to the available funding, producing at least some useful results at not much more than their current level, but able to scale up the effort and produce far more if significantly increased funding becomes available, adding on lightweight tanks, avionics, structures, TPS, propulsion, and so forth to the hardware end of things, testing more authentically and more often as the money becomes available. But the Air Force hasn't worked its official space-sortie requirements definition process around to the point of asking for money for initial research this year. The gears grind slowly. (At least they are now grinding...) Once again, if there is to be any money for this work at Phillips in FY'98, Congress will have to intervene and add it. Which is where we all come in... ________________________________________________________________________ Alert: Support DOD Reusable Rocket Component Test Funding The USAF Phillips Labs space sortie vehicle Integrated Technology Testbed could usefully absorb far more money than we realistically think we can get for them this year. We're asking for a relatively modest $75 million in FY'98 R&D funding for this effort. If we get this, or a substantial part of it, they should be able to move out fast and have a lot of useful data on repeated reuse of representative space sortie vehicle components, operated on a simulated vehicle, by the time the USAF gets to the point of making real decisions on all this. Such data could save a huge amount of both time and money a few years from now. Such data could also be immensely useful to efforts to develop commercial reusable space vehicles for applications where distributed basing and routine hours-not-days turnaround are important - worldwide express package delivery to name just one. The House Defense Authorization bill is currently due to be "marked up" in the House National Security R&D Subcommittee when Congress comes back from Memorial Day recess, the first week of June. The staffers are already doing the advance work; it's important to get our two cents worth into the process ASAP, this coming week. If you live in the district of one of the R&D Subcommittee members (see attached list), we ask you to call, write, or fax their Washington office and ask that they support adding $75 million in the Defense Authorization to PE 603401F (this is a temporary PE #, but it will do for now) for reusable space sortie research at USAF Phillips Labs. If you call, ask for the staffer who handles Defense R&D. As likely as not you'll get their voicemail. Live or voicemail, tell them who you are and that you're from their district, then ask them to support adding $75 million to PE603401F in the Defense Authorization for reusable space sortie vehicle preliminary research at USAF Phillips Labs, then (if you caught them live) answer any questions they have as best you can, then thank them for their time and ring off. Chances are the staffer you talk to is overworked, underpaid, and takes a lot of flack from constituents - be polite, always! If you write or fax, address it to the LA ("legislative assistant") for defense R&D, and keep it to one page, a couple of paragraphs at most. Tell them first what you want them to do, as above, then give them a paragraph or two of explanation. Important defense and civilian benefits at relatively low cost, good track record at Phillips, NASA for whatever reason is concentrating on other aspects of the technology, and so forth. Feel free to crib from Updates or even quote excerpts - but keep it short, make it persuasive, and again, keep it polite. (Freshmen have no numbers listed; you'll have to call the main Capitol switchboard at 202 224-3121 and ask for their offices by name. No guarantees the Democratic freshmen's names are spelled correctly; we were working from a faxed list that was blurry in that section.) House National Security Committee, R&D Subcommittee list voice fax - full committee chairman Spence, Floyd (R-02 SC) 1-202-225-2452 1-202-225-2455 - ranking minority member Dellums, Ronald V. (D-09 CA) 1-202-225-2661 1-202-225-9817 - subcommittee chairman Weldon, Curt (R-07 PA) 1-202-225-2011 1-202-225-8137 Bartlett, Roscoe G. (R-06 MD) 1-202-225-2721 1-202-225-2193 Kasich, John R. (R-12 OH) 1-202-225-5355 Bateman, Herbert H. (R-01 VA) 1-202-225-4261 1-202-225-4382 Hefley, Joel (R-05 CO) 1-202-225-4422 1-202-225-1942 McHugh, John M. (R-24 NY) 1-202-225-4611 1-202-226-0621 Hostettler, John (R-08 IN) 1-202-225-4636 1-202-225-4688 Chambliss, Saxby (R-08 GA) 1-202-225-6531 1-202-225-7719 Hilleary, Van (R-04 TN) 1-202-225-6831 1-202-225-4520 Scarborough, Joe (R-01 FL) 1-202-225-4136 1-202-225-5785 Jones, Walter (R-03 NC) 1-202-225-3415 1-202-225-0666 Mike Pappas (R NJ) Bob Riley (R AL) Jim Gibbons (R NV) - subcommittee ranking minority member Pickett, Owen B. (D-02 VA) 1-202-225-4215 1-202-225-4218 Abercrombie, Neil (D-01 HI) 1-202-225-2726 1-202-225-4580 Meehan, Martin T. (D-05 MA) 1-202-225-3411 1-202-226-0771 Harman, Jane (D-36 CA) 1-202-225-8220 1-202-226-0684 McHale, Paul (D-15 PA) 1-202-225-6411 1-202-225-5320 Kennedy, Patrick (D-01 RI) 1-202-225-4911 1-202-225-4417 Rod Blagnjevich (D IL) Silvestre Reyes (D TX) Tony Allen (D ME) Jim Turner (D TX) Loretta Sanchez (D CA) If you don't live in (or awfully near) any of the above districts (a phone call to your local library information desk should tell you whose district you're in) you might want to try writing or faxing one of the following Senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee Technology Subcommittee. We hear we already have some support on the Senate side, but it can't hurt to let them know what you think if you live in one of these states. We'll leave digging out the contact info as an exercise for the reader. Rick Santorum, R PA Olympia Snowe, R ME Pat Roberts, R KS Robert Smith, R NH Joseph Lieberman, D CT Edward Kennedy, D MA Jeff Bingaman, D NM Thanks! -----------------------(SAS Policy Boilerplate)------------------------ Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication. Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for all, period. We believe in concentrating our resources at whatever point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal. Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the government to build and fly multiple quick-and-dirty high-speed reusable "X-rocket" demonstrators in the next three years, in order to quickly build up both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit (SSTO) technology. The idea is to reduce SSTO technical uncertainty (and thus development risk and cost) while at the same time increasing investor confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense as a private commercial investment. We're not far from that point. With luck and hard work, we should see fully-reusable rocket testbeds flying into space before the end of this decade, with practical radically cheaper orbital transports following soon after. Space Access Society won't accept donations from government launch developers or contractors - it would limit our freedom to do what's needed. We survive on member dues and contributions, plus what we make selling tapes and running our annual conference. Join us, and help us make it happen. Henry Vanderbilt, Executive Director, Space Access Society To join Space Access Society or buy the SSTO/DC-X V 3.1 video we have for sale (Two hours, includes all twelve DC-X/XA flights, X-33 bidder animations, X-33, DC-X and SSTO backgrounders, aerospike engine test- stand footage, plus White Sands Missile Range DC-X ops site footage) mail a check to: SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044. SAS membership with direct email of Space Access Updates is $30 US per year; the SSTO V 3.0 video is $25, $5 off for SAS members, $8 extra for shipping outside North America, US standard VHS NTSC only. __________________________________________________________________________ Space Access Society "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150 in the Solar System." Phoenix AZ 85044 - Robert A. Heinlein 602 431-9283 voice/fax www.space-access.org "You can't get there from here." space.access@space-access.org - Anonymous - Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this - - piece, including the copyright and this notice. All other rights - - reserved. In other words, crossposting, emailing, or printing this - - whole and passing it on to interested parties is strongly encouraged. - From owner-starship-design Fri Jun 6 15:05 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5075" "Fri" "6" "June" "1997" "16:56:36" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "114" "starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 72 Alert - Followup" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA05010 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 15:05:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA04944 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 15:05:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p140.gnt.com (p140.gnt.com [204.49.68.141]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA14370 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 17:05:34 -0500 Received: by p140.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC729B.D8925FA0@p140.gnt.com>; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 17:05:33 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC729B.D8925FA0@p140.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id PAA04963 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 5074 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 72 Alert - Followup Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 16:56:36 -0500 Long experience has taught me not to believe in the limitations indicated by purely theoretical considerations. These - as we well know - are based on insufficient knowledge of all the relevant factors." Guglielmo Marconi -----Original Message----- From: Chris W. Johnson [SMTP:chrisj@mail.utexas.edu] Sent: Friday, June 06, 1997 2:29 PM To: Single Stage Rocket Technology News Subject: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 72 Alert - Followup Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 23:15:29 -0700 (MST) From: Donald Doughty To: delta-clipper@world.std.com Subject: Space Access Alert (SAU #72) Followup 6/5/97 (fwd) Reply-To: delta-clipper@world.std.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 02:09:21 -0400 (EDT) From: hvanderbilt@BIX.com To: hvanderbilt@BIX.com Subject: Space Access Alert (SAU #72) Followup 6/5/97 Space Access Society SAU #72 Alert - Followup, 6/5/97 __________________________________________________________________________ We included a political action alert in Update #72 of 5/23/97, asking you to contact members of the House National Security Committee R&D Subcommittee, and ask them to support funding for reusable launch work in next year's Defense Authorization. We're happy to report that we've heard authoritatively that Rep. Curt Weldon, R&D Subcommittee Chairman, plans to add $15 million for reusable launch technology work in next Tuesday's Defense Authorization markup. We intend to push for more in the House-Senate conference to come (we'd asked for and think Phillips Labs could effectively use $75 million) but this $15 million add is both a significant expression of support (the initial amount was zero) and still quite useful even if we don't get it increased later. We'd like to thank everyone involved in this initial success, on the Hill, inside the Beltway, and out in the country at large. We'd also like to ask you to thank Representative Weldon for his support for reusable "spaceplane" technology funding in the FY'98 Defense Authorization, over the next few days. Keep it very brief, a few words on the phone, a couple lines on the fax or letter - we want to let his staff know we noticed and we're grateful, not eat up their time when they're already overloaded. A note or postcard via paper mail is probably the easiest for them to handle; an address that will work is: The Honorable Curt Weldon US House of Representatives Washington DC 20515 If your local representative is also on the R&D subcommittee and you contacted them previously, a quick thanks to them (as above) would also be a good thing to do. We'll attach the R&D Subcommittee list again, for your convenience. (Freshmen have no numbers listed; you'll have to call the main Capitol switchboard at 202 224-3121 and ask for their offices by name. No guarantees the Democratic freshmen's names are spelled correctly; we were working from a faxed list that was blurry in that section.) House National Security Committee, R&D Subcommittee list voice fax - full committee chairman Spence, Floyd (R-02 SC) 1-202-225-2452 1-202-225-2455 - ranking minority member Dellums, Ronald V. (D-09 CA) 1-202-225-2661 1-202-225-9817 - subcommittee chairman Weldon, Curt (R-07 PA) 1-202-225-2011 1-202-225-8137 Bartlett, Roscoe G. (R-06 MD) 1-202-225-2721 1-202-225-2193 Kasich, John R. (R-12 OH) 1-202-225-5355 Bateman, Herbert H. (R-01 VA) 1-202-225-4261 1-202-225-4382 Hefley, Joel (R-05 CO) 1-202-225-4422 1-202-225-1942 McHugh, John M. (R-24 NY) 1-202-225-4611 1-202-226-0621 Hostettler, John (R-08 IN) 1-202-225-4636 1-202-225-4688 Chambliss, Saxby (R-08 GA) 1-202-225-6531 1-202-225-7719 Hilleary, Van (R-04 TN) 1-202-225-6831 1-202-225-4520 Scarborough, Joe (R-01 FL) 1-202-225-4136 1-202-225-5785 Jones, Walter (R-03 NC) 1-202-225-3415 1-202-225-0666 Mike Pappas (R NJ) Bob Riley (R AL) Jim Gibbons (R NV) - subcommittee ranking minority member Pickett, Owen B. (D-02 VA) 1-202-225-4215 1-202-225-4218 Abercrombie, Neil (D-01 HI) 1-202-225-2726 1-202-225-4580 Meehan, Martin T. (D-05 MA) 1-202-225-3411 1-202-226-0771 Harman, Jane (D-36 CA) 1-202-225-8220 1-202-226-0684 McHale, Paul (D-15 PA) 1-202-225-6411 1-202-225-5320 Kennedy, Patrick (D-01 RI) 1-202-225-4911 1-202-225-4417 Rod Blagnjevich (D IL) Silvestre Reyes (D TX) Tony Allen (D ME) Jim Turner (D TX) Loretta Sanchez (D CA) __________________________________________________________________________ Space Access Society "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150 in the Solar System." Phoenix AZ 85044 - Robert A. Heinlein 602 431-9283 voice/fax www.space-access.org "You can't get there from here." space.access@space-access.org - Anonymous From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 9 08:58 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2380" "Mon" "9" "June" "1997" "09:55:59" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "68" "starship-design: Tau Ceti, It and Planets" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA00538 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 08:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA00508 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 08:57:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp9.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp9.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.81]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA14664 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 11:56:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <339C359E.2EB8@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 2379 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Tau Ceti, It and Planets Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 09:55:59 -0700 I am new to this project, so try to bear with me. I read that you are planning the mission to be for the star tau ceti. I would like to express my feelings about this choich, and voice my findings regarding the star and its solar system. I think tau ceti is a wonderful destination. It is quite sunlike, and the first planet seems good. I have some info on the star itself: Spectral Type: G8V Mass: .82 suns Distance: 11.9 ly Apparent Magnitude: +3.5 Main sequence lifetime: 16.43 Gyr Age (current): 5.38 Gyr Radius: .80 suns Surface gravity: 341.7 m/sec^2 Escape Velocity: 621 km/sec Luminosity: .41 suns Absolute magnitude: 5.7 Surface temperature: 5144K Peak wavelength(micron): .56 Outer Ecoshell radius: .64 au Inner Ecoshell radius: .79 au Tau Ceti I: Mean orbital distance: .72 au Eccentricity: .00 (why not?) Axial tilt: not established Year: 246.4 earth days Star system escape velocity: 44.97 km/sec Angular diameter of star: .60* Rotation period: not established Mass: .21 earths Radius:3800 km Density: 5464 kg/m^3 Albedo: .33 (why not?) Inertia Factor: .34? (an educated guess) Gravity: (typical) 5.80 m/sec^2 1/ellipticity: 294.1 (why not?) Escape velocity: 6.64 km/sec Shortest possible rotation: 2.64 hours Geosynchronous orbit: 21274 km (something like that) End of major plate tectonics: 1.68 Gyr (we don't have to worry about alien Mt.St Helens!) Maximum mountain height: 28067 m (probably lower than that) Atmospheric composition: O2, N2, CO2, H2O vapor, percentages unknown Atmospheric Pressure: What, you're asking me?? Temperature range of orbit: -32.4 to -37.2C Surface temperature: (45*) about -7C or 19.4F (assuming good greenhouse effect) Bring jackets! Mid ocean tide height: .22 m (something like that) Conclusion: Sounds good, a bit chilly but survivable. Oceans probable from H2O signature in atmosphere, Life probable due to O2 and CO2 signatures. I would recommend that we find out the atmospheric percentages ASAP. (after all, this is 2050, and in 1997 they've already discovered over a dozen planets. I think we could do that) Pressure could also be helpful. (Maybe we have an advanced platform studying extrasolar planets, like NASA's GAEA concept, or the DARWIN concept. Take jackets, as the weather report shows cold for another 10 billion years. (a little humor). Well thats it. Respond when you have a chance. Kyle R. Mcallister From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 9 12:59 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1114" "Mon" "9" "June" "1997" "13:58:46" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "30" "starship-design: To FTL or not to FTL, that is the question." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA00458 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 12:58:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA00421 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 12:58:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp9.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp9.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.81]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA00475 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 15:58:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <339C6E85.4F35@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1113 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: To FTL or not to FTL, that is the question. Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 13:58:46 -0700 Greetings, all! I know I just sent a post, but I had something that I would like to inform everyone of: I am creating my own starship design. I think most of you will probably scoff at it, but I'm gonna do it anyways. The reason I think this is that it will be designed to travel to Tau Ceti, 11.9 ly away, in just 4 years. To put it simply, it involves FTL. Non-alcubierre FTL. Something better, faster and alot easier to do, something that we could have by the year 2050! No, I am not insane. Remember what people said to Columbus: "Impossible! you'll sail off the world." He made it here. To the Wright bros.: "Man was not meant to fly! It's impossible." They flew. To NASA: "We'll never get to the moon. It ain't possible!" We went. Why is it different with FTL? It isn't. If your interested, E-mail me. Later on I might post some of my ideas. Until then, I'll just help out the conventional stuff. I also do habitats. I may only be 14, but I know what I'm talking about. (For unbelievers: I'm entering colledge). See ya later, and good luck from the Skytracker. (my nickname) Kyle Randall Mcallister From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 10 13:06 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["986" "Tue" "10" "June" "1997" "14:05:45" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "27" "starship-design: We need habitats" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA17188 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 13:05:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA17134 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 13:05:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp3.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp3.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.75]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA06347 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 16:05:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <339DC1A8.1DAD@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 985 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: We need habitats Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:05:45 -0700 Greetings fellow LIT members. We need some serious thought on the aspect of habitats. Once we get to Tau ceti, we are probably going to want to set up a habitat on the surface of Tceti I. After all, why risk a mission, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, to go to another star system if we aren't going to set up a colony there. As far as bio- -contaminants, well maybe. But think of this: the proteins (if any) are probably different than ours, and thus probably won't have much of an effect on aliens (us). If there is a good atmosphere, we could use it to breath by filtering it before pumping it into the colony. The atmosphere seems good: nitrogen, oxygen, co2, water vapor, etc. But as I said earlier: we NEED ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE. If no one is willing to calculate this (or postulate it), maybe I should. I'd like to go explore the newly (1996) discovered planets orbiting 70 vir, 47uma, and rho CrB but theya are 40+ ly away. Respond whenever. Kyle R. Mcallister From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 10 13:57 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1099" "Tue" "10" "June" "1997" "14:57:23" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "31" "starship-design: Habitat ideas" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA14172 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 13:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA14129 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 13:57:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp3.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp3.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.75]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA11767 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 16:57:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <339DCDC2.3087@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1098 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Habitat ideas Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:57:23 -0700 I'm back. Here's my idea of what we'll need for a successful habitat: Residential areas- Perhaps apartment like modules in which the people can live. Atmospheric/climatic systems- Air production (if necessary), heat/cooling, air filtration, etc. Communications system- to keep in touch with the rest of the system (starship, etc.) Fuel/parts storage Some simple miner/processor facilities? perhaps on asteroids? (if any) Power generation system- Hey, you got to have power. fusion? fossil? what? Waste management- recycle everything possible! Food production facility- If you are staying for long, you need food to avoid pesky starvation. Medical laboratory- We have to admit it: people WILL get sick and injured. Dedicated laboratory- To study the surroundings. Surveilance/Defense platform- I know, sounds harsh, but help is 11.9 ly away! Most likely, we'll carry the prefabricated modules/facilities with us, but we could dismantle some of the starship temporarily, haul it down piece by piece, and when done on surface, reattach it to the ship for the return voyage. Kyle R. Mcallister From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 10 14:52 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["549" "Tue" "10" "June" "1997" "16:09:22" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "21" "starship-design: http://www.seds.org/spaceviews/currentsv/index.html" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA12138 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:52:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA12053 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:52:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p1.gnt.com (x2p1.gnt.com [204.49.68.206]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA20192 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 16:52:48 -0500 Received: by x2p1.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC75BE.B954A6E0@x2p1.gnt.com>; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 16:52:47 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC75BE.B954A6E0@x2p1.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BC75BE.B9870180" Content-Length: 548 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: http://www.seds.org/spaceviews/currentsv/index.html Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 16:09:22 -0500 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC75BE.B9870180 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There are some interesting articles here that everyone might want to read.... http://www.seds.org/spaceviews/currentsv/index.html ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC75BE.B9870180 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name=" June 1997 .url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 W0ludGVybmV0U2hvcnRjdXRdDQpVUkw9aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zZWRzLm9yZy9zcGFjZXZpZXdzL2N1 cnJlbnRzdi9pbmRleC5odG1sDQo= ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC75BE.B9870180-- From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 10 15:20 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["746" "Wed" "11" "June" "1997" "00:17:23" "+0200" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "20" "starship-design: Re: We need habitats" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA25127 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:20:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA25110 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:20:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-29.svpop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0wbZH8-000FE8C; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:20:26 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970611001723.006990dc@pop1.tip.nl> X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <339DC1A8.1DAD@sunherald.infi.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 745 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: We need habitats Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:17:23 +0200 Hello Kyle, You wrote: >After all, why risk a mission, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, to >go to another star system if we aren't going to set up a colony there. As >far as bio-contaminants, well maybe. But think of this: the proteins >(if any) are probably different than ours, and thus probably won't have much >of an effect on aliens (us). Their proteins may be different, but it's quite likely that they use several of the basic amino-acids that construct our proteins. Alien bacteria may not care how our proteins in total look like, they will "chew" on us and break the proteins down to basic amino-acids. As long as we or our body can't kill the alien bacteria effectively, we are out of luck. Timothy Sheliak@huizen.dds.nl From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 10 15:53 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1553" "Tue" "10" "June" "1997" "15:53:07" "-0700" "Ken Wharton" "wharton@physics.ucla.edu" nil "29" "starship-design: Homochirality" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA09523 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from physics.ucla.edu (physics.ucla.edu [128.97.23.13]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA09500 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:53:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from watt by physics.ucla.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA16975; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:53:09 -0700 Received: by watt (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA15032; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:53:07 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706102253.PAA15032@watt> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1552 From: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Homochirality Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:53:07 -0700 Yeah, alien bacteria might be pretty nasty. Unless the alien life was nearly identical to Earth life we probably wouldn't have to worry about alien viruses, though, which would be a good thing. And maybe there's a 50% chance the bacteria wouldn't even be dangerous. All of our Earth-life amino acids are chiral, meaning their mirror-image isn't the same as the original. It's an outstanding puzzle how homochirality came about on Earth, but if the process is random, then there's a 50% chance that ALL the alien amino acids will be different; I think they all have to be either right-handed or left-handed. But there was a recent paper that might be bad news for the random theory; a meteorite's moledules were recently analzyed for chirality, and a slight imbalance was found between the right- and left- handed versions. And the imbalance favored the same versions as Earth life. So maybe it's not a random process after all, and all alien life will have some duplicate aminos. It's still an unresolved question, though. As for the atmosphere on a planet around Tau Ceti... Maybe we have no way of knowing right now, but is there any way we could make a measurement without actually going there? I'm not sure what Deep Space Interferometry is capable of, but anyone know what spectral signatures we might be able to measure long-distance? Water vapor? Ozone? CO2? I know NASA is batting around the idea, but I have no idea what the theoretical detection limits are. Especially with so much light coming from the star... Ken Wharton From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 10 17:59 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1682" "Tue" "10" "June" "1997" "18:59:55" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "42" "starship-design: Land or orbit" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA03354 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 17:59:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA03343 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 17:59:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp11.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp11.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.83]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA12416 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 20:59:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <339E069A.791A@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Length: 1681 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Land or orbit Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 18:59:55 -0700 Greetings! You're right. Alien bacteria could be a problem. Also consider fungus. It could be real nasty on humans, perhaps even deadly. Fortunately, it can be killed (I hope the tau cetian variety could). But I still think that it would be so much better if we were to land on the planet, rather than stay in orbit a few years, and begin the trip home. And it would probably get more funding from the public. As far as atmospheric gasss, if you'll look in the charter section of the web page, you will find that it says "spectral studies indicate an atmosphere containing significant amounts of O2, N2, CO2, and water vapor, but we cannot give relative amounts. I think its safe to say that by the year 2050, we might have an instrument sensitive enough to give us a ball-park estimate of the percentages. As far as pressure, I've thought about it, and can't come up with a plausible system for measuring it from here. Albedo would probably not work (a friend of mine tried this, and said that the atmosphere of mars was between 8000 and 19000 millibars!) Density wave analysis, maybe, but how do we pass density waves 11.9 ly to target, bounce them back, and record the information? Let alone generate them in the first place. If anyone has an idea, let me know. Just the signature of O2 and CO2 tells me there's probably life of some kind there. The water vapor indicates (maybe) clouds and water, perhaps oceans at the warm equator. I would recommend that the colony be established at the equator, where the temperatures aren't to harsh. Then again the poles might be somewhat devoid of life, making the chances of germ contamination less likely... Kyle R. Mcallister From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 10 18:55 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["490" "Tue" "10" "June" "1997" "19:55:10" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "15" "starship-design: Pointers to webpages" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA20902 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 18:55:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA20838 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 18:55:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp11.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp6.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.78]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA32541 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 21:55:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <339E138D.1EF6@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Length: 489 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Pointers to webpages Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 19:55:10 -0700 Greetings, fellow LIT members! I have been surfing around for awhile, and I've found some websites you may be interested in. 1: John Bray's "Alien planet designer". Lets you input planetary and solar statistics, and calculates up the information (temperature, solar age, etc). It does the dirty work for you. http://www.compulink.co.uk/~vicarage/planets/list.html 2: An Icarus scientific paper author search page. http://astrosun.th.cornell.edu/icarus/indices/ Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 11 11:02 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["760" "Wed" "11" "June" "1997" "12:02:02" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "24" "starship-design: What if..." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA12682 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 11:02:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA12663 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 11:02:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp6.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp6.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.78]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA27617 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 14:02:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <339EF62A.5BF5@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 759 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: What if... Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 12:02:02 -0700 Hello fellow starship designers! I was thinking about our destination planet, and was wondering: It's earthlike, so what if there is a pre-industrial society there, or even just a presentient species there? What should we do? After all, it is their planet, even if they are extremely primative. I know this will sound paranoid, but we must be prepared for all possibilities: Whit if we find evidence that the planet has been visited in the past by a starfaring technological race? Even more unlikely, what if we find there an OPERATIONAL von-neumann colony, or something of that order. I know these are extremely unlikely possibilities, but we MUST BE PREPARED FOR ANYTHING. After all, it would not be they, but we who are the aliens. Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 11 15:00 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["967" "Wed" "11" "June" "1997" "15:59:43" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "30" "starship-design: Fuel supplies and energy" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA11958 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 14:59:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA11947 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 14:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp6.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp5.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.77]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA05427 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 17:59:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <339F2DDF.661F@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 966 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Fuel supplies and energy Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 15:59:43 -0700 Greetings. I had an idea for fuel replenishment, as far as hydrogen and other light gasses. Mine comets in the new solar system. If there are none (unlikely), than use ices from the surfaces of the moons, or siphon gas from the gas giants. As far as boron or lithium, it'll have to be mined. If there were just some way to have incredible amounts of energy, but require little fuel... Aha! Zero point energy. But I think too advanced. We probably wouldn't have it perfected by the time we needed it. Cruising through space would be so much easier if there were something rigid but flexible to push against. So much for the Aether hypothesis. I would appreciate any advanced ideas on propulsion that any of you might have. But if they are reactionless drives, I'll take them with a grain of salt. Atmosphere percentages anyone? I could do them quite easily. (just takes imagination) Kyle Mcallister P.S.: Ben (bakelaar@injersey.com) I agree to work with you. From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 11 15:36 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["845" "Wed" "11" "June" "1997" "16:35:50" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "19" "starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA00064 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 15:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA00048 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 15:35:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp6.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp5.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.77]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA16398 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:35:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <339F3655.4E51@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 844 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 16:35:50 -0700 Addenum to previous post: I stopped to think about the Zero point energy idea, and I've changed my mind. I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that zpe might be available by 2050. after all, look at how far along we've come since 1940! And the energy output is simply incredible. I read an estimate of the overall energy density being on the order of 1093 gms/cm^3! That could easily be used to power our starship. I think, although many may disagree with me, that it could hold the potential to powering a starship to relativistic speeds and, just possibly BEYOND c. My starship design that I mentioned a few days ago, will probably be considered at best, controversial. But I am an optimist, and I think that it is within the scope of possibility. I'll have to post more later on. Gotta run. And best of luck! Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 11 15:52 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1226" "Wed" "11" "June" "1997" "15:53:25" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "25" "starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA07362 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 15:52:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA07335 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 15:52:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [198.68.17.19]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA12091 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 15:51:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA30114; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 15:53:25 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706112253.PAA30114@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <339F3655.4E51@sunherald.infi.net> References: <339F3655.4E51@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.32 under 19.15p5 XEmacs Lucid Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1225 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 15:53:25 -0700 kyle writes: > Addenum to previous post: > > I stopped to think about the Zero point energy idea, and I've changed my > mind. > I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that zpe might be available > by 2050. > after all, look at how far along we've come since 1940! And the > energy output is simply incredible. I read an estimate of the > overall energy density being on the order of 1093 gms/cm^3! That > could easily be used to power our starship. I think, although > many may disagree with me, that it could hold the potential to > powering a starship to relativistic speeds and, just possibly > BEYOND c. As one of the resident relativity weenies on the list, I'd have to say that the physical difficulties of superluminal travel are not likely to be overcome by 2050, if ever, even if huge amounts of energy are available. The only remotely plausible superluminal loopholes are in some rather esoteric consequences of general relativity that are truly difficult to create (when they are not, on further analysis, impossible to realize in a finite universe). I think we're going to have to settle for subluminal travel, which still at least allows us to get to distant stars in a human lifetime. From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 11 16:02 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["535" "Wed" "11" "June" "1997" "17:02:49" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "18" "starship-design: Atmosphere is necesary!" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA12547 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 16:02:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA12524 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 16:02:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp6.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp5.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.77]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA03254 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 19:02:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <339F3CA9.521D@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 534 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Atmosphere is necesary! Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 17:02:49 -0700 Greetings again. Found something interesting: An old newsletter circa 4/29/96 (its in the records of old newsletters) said that you had sent a flyby mission. I saw the fractal images, so I ask myself, "why couldn't we get an atmosphere reading?" Heck, it was close enough, the green indicates life, the water is there. How about Atmospheric compostion. We desperately need to have this. Please advise. Perhaps I'm mistaken about the flyby, but composition is necessary! Respond whenever you have time. Thanks, Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 11 20:41 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2732" "Wed" "11" "June" "1997" "23:40:58" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "80" "Re: starship-design: Tau Ceti, It and Planets" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA17182 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:41:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout14.mail.aol.com (emout14.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA17157 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:41:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout14.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA06934; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:40:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970611234052_-160978367@emout14.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2731 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: stk@sunherald.infi.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Tau Ceti, It and Planets Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:40:58 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/9/97 10:02:30 AM, stk@sunherald.infi.net (kyle) wrote: >I am new to this project, so try to bear with me. > >I read that you are planning the mission to be for the star tau ceti. I >would >like to express my feelings about this choich, and voice my findings >regarding >the star and its solar system. I think tau ceti is a wonderful >destination. It is >quite sunlike, and the first planet seems good. I have some info on the >star itself: > >Spectral Type: G8V >Mass: .82 suns >Distance: 11.9 ly >Apparent Magnitude: +3.5 >Main sequence lifetime: 16.43 Gyr >Age (current): 5.38 Gyr >Radius: .80 suns >Surface gravity: 341.7 m/sec^2 >Escape Velocity: 621 km/sec >Luminosity: .41 suns >Absolute magnitude: 5.7 >Surface temperature: 5144K >Peak wavelength(micron): .56 >Outer Ecoshell radius: .64 au >Inner Ecoshell radius: .79 au > >Tau Ceti I: >Mean orbital distance: .72 au >Eccentricity: .00 (why not?) >Axial tilt: not established >Year: 246.4 earth days >Star system escape velocity: 44.97 km/sec >Angular diameter of star: .60* >Rotation period: not established >Mass: .21 earths >Radius:3800 km >Density: 5464 kg/m^3 >Albedo: .33 (why not?) >Inertia Factor: .34? (an educated guess) >Gravity: (typical) 5.80 m/sec^2 >1/ellipticity: 294.1 (why not?) >Escape velocity: 6.64 km/sec >Shortest possible rotation: 2.64 hours >Geosynchronous orbit: 21274 km (something like that) >End of major plate tectonics: 1.68 Gyr (we don't have to worry about >alien Mt.St Helens!) >Maximum mountain height: 28067 m (probably lower than that) >Atmospheric composition: O2, N2, CO2, H2O vapor, percentages unknown >Atmospheric Pressure: What, you're asking me?? >Temperature range of orbit: -32.4 to -37.2C >Surface temperature: (45*) about -7C or 19.4F (assuming good greenhouse >effect) Bring jackets! >Mid ocean tide height: .22 m (something like that) > >Conclusion: Sounds good, a bit chilly but survivable. Oceans probable >from H2O signature in atmosphere, Life probable due to O2 and CO2 >signatures. I would recommend that we find out the atmospheric >percentages ASAP. (after all, this is 2050, and in 1997 they've already >discovered over a dozen planets. I think we could do that) Pressure >could also be helpful. (Maybe we have an advanced platform studying >extrasolar planets, like NASA's GAEA concept, or the DARWIN concept. >Take jackets, as the weather report shows cold for another 10 billion >years. (a little humor). > >Well thats it. Respond when you have a chance. > Kyle R. Mcallister Welcome to the group Kyle. Where are you geting this info from? From what I remember we never defined the place in this much detail. (I also remember very little grav or air on planet 1.) Kelly Starks From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 11 20:41 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1467" "Wed" "11" "June" "1997" "23:41:00" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "42" "Re: starship-design: To FTL or not to FTL, that is the question." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA17233 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout18.mail.aol.com (emout18.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.44]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA17169 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:41:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout18.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA25482; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:41:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970611234055_-1396497794@emout18.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1466 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: stk@sunherald.infi.net, owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: To FTL or not to FTL, that is the question. Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:41:00 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/9/97 2:05:00 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net (kyle) wrote: >Greetings, all! > >I know I just sent a post, but I had something that I would like to >inform everyone of: I am creating my own starship design. I think most >of >you will probably scoff at it, but I'm gonna do it anyways. The reason I >think this is that it will be designed to travel to Tau Ceti, 11.9 ly >away, >in just 4 years. To put it simply, it involves FTL. Non-alcubierre FTL. >Something >better, faster and alot easier to do, something that we could have by >the year 2050! >No, I am not insane. Remember what people said to Columbus: "Impossible! >you'll sail >off the world." He made it here. To the Wright bros.: "Man was not meant >to fly! >It's impossible." They flew. To NASA: "We'll never get to the moon. It >ain't possible!" >We went. Why is it different with FTL? It isn't. If your interested, >E-mail me. >Later on I might post some of my ideas. Until then, I'll just help out >the >conventional stuff. I also do habitats. I may only be 14, but I know >what I'm talking >about. (For unbelievers: I'm entering colledge). See ya later, and good >luck >from the Skytracker. (my nickname) > > Kyle Randall Mcallister We generally droped FTL since: 1- their no solid idea how to do it (YET). 2- If we start basing designs on speculative guesses we'ld wind up debating science fiction senarios, not a predictable future. (Interesting, but not very solid.) Kelly From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 11 20:41 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1915" "Wed" "11" "June" "1997" "23:41:01" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "49" "Re: starship-design: We need habitats" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA17250 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:41:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.95]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA17189 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:41:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA19867; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:41:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970611234059_470682945@emout04.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1914 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: stk@sunherald.infi.net, owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: We need habitats Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:41:01 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/10/97 2:08:23 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net (kyle) wrote: >Greetings fellow LIT members. > >We need some serious thought on the aspect of habitats. Once we get to >Tau ceti, we >are probably going to want to set up a habitat on the surface of Tceti >I. After >all, why risk a mission, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, to go >to >another star system if we aren't going to set up a colony there. As far >as bio- >-contaminants, well maybe. But think of this: the proteins (if any) are >probably >different than ours, and thus probably won't have much of an effect on >aliens (us). >If there is a good atmosphere, we could use it to breath by filtering it >before >pumping it into the colony. The atmosphere seems good: nitrogen, oxygen, >co2, water vapor, etc. But as I said earlier: we NEED ATMOSPHERIC >PRESSURE. If no one is willing >to calculate this (or postulate it), maybe I should. I'd like to go >explore the >newly (1996) discovered planets orbiting 70 vir, 47uma, and rho CrB but >theya are >40+ ly away. Respond whenever. > > Kyle R. Mcallister This is a hotly debated topic! ;) Unless you can move hundreds of thousands of people (give or take a factor of ten) the colony couldn't be self suficent. So it would be dependant on that long thin suply line from Earth. Earth would be unlikely to pay the bills. (It would raise mission costs and complexity by orders of magnitude.) WHY set up a colony? Normally stable colonies are formed after we find someplace worth staying at. By def, we don't know of any reason to stay there. Why settle on the planet? Resorces are far more common and access able in space then on a planet. The danger of contamination is less. You can always build a earth like space colony. You can't always do that on a planet. Besides theirs a whole star system to explore. You can't strand all your resources on one rock. Kelly From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 11 20:41 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1412" "Wed" "11" "June" "1997" "23:41:06" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "41" "Re: starship-design: What if..." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA17271 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA17260 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:41:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA10393; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:41:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970611234102_288011073@emout07.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1411 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: stk@sunherald.infi.net, owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: What if... Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:41:06 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/11/97 12:07:57 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net (kyle) wrote: >Hello fellow starship designers! > >I was thinking about our destination planet, and was wondering: It's >earthlike, >so what if there is a pre-industrial society there, or even just a >presentient >species there? What should we do? After all, it is their planet, even if >they are >extremely primative. > >I know this will sound paranoid, but we must be prepared for all >possibilities: >Whit if we find evidence that the planet has been visited in the past by >a >starfaring technological race? Even more unlikely, what if we find there >an >OPERATIONAL von-neumann colony, or something of that order. I know these >are >extremely unlikely possibilities, but we MUST BE PREPARED FOR ANYTHING. >After >all, it would not be they, but we who are the aliens. > > Kyle Mcallister A couple years ago this came up. I think the runiong assumption was armor and arm ground exploration vehicals against nasty life forms. (Armored cars anyone?) And stringently quarenteen the returning survey team away from the ship. If you can't be sure nothing contaminated them, they don't get back on the ship. And if you can't prove the ship is clean. The ship doesn't get to slow dow in our starsystem. As to inteligences. Try to talk. If that fails, study them A LOT. (Hey I never wanted to colonize the planet antway. ;) ) Kelly From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 12 06:11 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2602" "Thu" "12" "June" "1997" "08:05:56" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "40" "RE: starship-design: What if..." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA22872 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 06:11:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA22861 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 06:11:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p28.gnt.com (x2p28.gnt.com [204.49.68.233]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA08364; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 08:10:33 -0500 Received: by x2p28.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC7708.17D4D880@x2p28.gnt.com>; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 08:10:30 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC7708.17D4D880@x2p28.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id GAA22864 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2601 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'KellySt@aol.com'" , "stk@sunherald.infi.net" , "owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu" , "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: RE: starship-design: What if... Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 08:05:56 -0500 Kelly et al, Kelly and I once discussed my view that we may not even WANT to plan on colonizing the planet immediately. From a commercial point of view this may be the LEAST desirable option. Jim Benson of Space Development Corporation is currently studying methods of mining near Earth asteroids. Unlike Earth-bound mineral deposits, evidence indicates that not only are asteroids significantly richer in mineral deposits than planetary deposits, but that they are also more concentrated. He gave an estimated value figure for a typical asteroid at 10 trillion dollars! Certainly that is quite an inducement for private enterprise and may provide the impetus for the first push not only off of our planet but out of our solar system. Exploration of the new planet or planets may be carried out more effectively from space initially anyway. I think the prudent thing to do if there is a habitable planet is to establish the orbital infrastructure first, build low orbit stations to carry out ground-based research and exploration with two levels of quarantine containment for personnel. The first would be ground based, the second in low orbit. Since we would have spent YEARS studying the planet by remote probes from orbit first, we would already have a good idea about the chances of their biochemistry interacting with ours, before the first unprotected human steps out on the surface. Meanwhile, we have built an extensive industrial base in orbit and perhaps on some of the moons to provide things such as repair parts and fuel for starships and perhaps be well on the way to building another starship for the next jump outward. Returning starships could be carrying valuable mineral resources rather than simply running empty. In other words, trade and industry would be under way without the steep penalty of a planetary gravity well. Lee Parker Long experience has taught me not to believe in the limitations indicated by purely theoretical considerations. These - as we well know - are based on insufficient knowledge of all the relevant factors." Guglielmo Marconi -----Original Message----- From: KellySt@aol.com [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 1997 10:41 PM To: stk@sunherald.infi.net; owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu; starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: What if... In a message dated 6/11/97 12:07:57 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net (kyle) wrote: >Hello fellow starship designers! As to inteligences. Try to talk. If that fails, study them A LOT. (Hey I never wanted to colonize the planet antway. ;) ) Kelly From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 12 13:03 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["993" "Thu" "12" "June" "1997" "14:03:30" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "40" "starship-design: Ideas, thoughts, and speculation" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA26031 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:03:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA25993 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:03:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp3.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp3.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.75]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA08701 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 16:03:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33A06421.6F8A@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 992 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Ideas, thoughts, and speculation Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 14:03:30 -0700 Greetings, everyone. I have some ideas that we might consider. CONVENTIONAL ideas: Slowing a sail-ship: How about using a magnetic loop to slow the ship. I read about that concept somewhere before. RAIR Ramscoops: Instead of using a physical scoop, use a magnetic scoop. We could use a laser to ionize the gass directly in front of the ship, and then magnetically shunt it into the drive assembly. The laser might also help deflect large objects. Laser ionization: Use a pulsed laser to ionize fuel for thrust. EXOTIC ideas: Read at own risk! Wouldn't it be nice if we could use just energy as fuel? Sure, if it works. Gravity/Antigravity generation: I have some ideas, but I don't know about it. Tachyon propulsion: Great! How is it done? And I hate time travel! Magnetic Warping of space: Hmmmm... Alcubierre warp drive: Good, neat, but unfortunately they don't sell exotic matter at the local 7-11. As always, TAKE THESE IDEAS WITH A GRAIN OF SALT! Kyle R. Mcallister From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 12 13:17 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["588" "Thu" "12" "June" "1997" "16:31:06" "-0400" "Bakelaar" "bakelaar@injersey.com" "<199706122031.QAA18805@nj5.injersey.com>" "14" "starship-design: just a note.." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA02940 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:17:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nj5.injersey.com (root@nj5.injersey.com [206.139.48.252]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA02911 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:17:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pbakelaar.exit109.com (ppp104-tmrv.injersey.com [206.139.59.104]) by nj5.injersey.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA18805 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 16:31:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706122031.QAA18805@nj5.injersey.com> X-Sender: bakelaar@injersey.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Bakelaar Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 587 From: Bakelaar Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: just a note.. Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 16:31:06 -0400 (EDT) ok, first, do you guys remember in gardens of paradise or whatever that book was called, arthur c. clarke made up that space elevator with that string that made it easy to get stuff up into space.. (yea thats a pretty bad description but i cant remember it :D).. well anyway in popsci they mention that scientists have created some type of carbon filament that can withstand the atmospheric pressure put on itself when suspended from orbit.. theres so much speculation and guesswork in this group, i figgered we needed a little solid fact :) ben p.s. email me if you want more info From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 12 13:30 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1374" "Thu" "12" "June" "1997" "13:31:07" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "24" "starship-design: just a note.." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA08863 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:30:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA08832 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:30:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [198.68.17.19]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA17912 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:28:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA00406; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:31:07 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706122031.NAA00406@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <199706122031.QAA18805@nj5.injersey.com> References: <199706122031.QAA18805@nj5.injersey.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.32 under 19.15p5 XEmacs Lucid Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1373 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: just a note.. Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:31:07 -0700 Bakelaar writes: > ok, first, do you guys remember in gardens of paradise or whatever > that book was called, arthur c. clarke made up that space elevator > with that string that made it easy to get stuff up into space.. (yea > thats a pretty bad description but i cant remember it :D).. well > anyway in popsci they mention that scientists have created some type > of carbon filament that can withstand the atmospheric pressure put on > itself when suspended from orbit.. theres so much speculation and > guesswork in this group, i figgered we needed a little solid fact :) The main technical difficulty with a skyhook is not atmospheric pressure but finding a material with sufficient tensile strength. The skyhook is actually a cable in geosynchronous orbit with one end touching the ground. This requires that it be able to withstand the enormous tidal differential between the ends, resulting in tremendous tension (not compression!) on the cable. Other problems include anchoring the ground end and fabricating a cable that long (as much as 46,000 miles for a uniform cable; less if you use a counterweight on the far end) and dealing with small but significant changes in the rotation speed of the Earth (perhaps a movable counterweight?). The concept of a skyhook had been worked on for quite a while before Clarke wrote _The Fountains of Paradise_. From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 12 13:36 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["414" "Thu" "12" "June" "1997" "14:35:42" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "14" "starship-design: Beanstalk" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA10897 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA10870 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp3.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp3.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.75]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA27690 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 16:35:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33A06BAE.3812@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 413 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Beanstalk Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 14:35:42 -0700 To All members and ben (bakelaar@injersey.com) I believe what ben is refering to is called "beanstalk", a way to get cheap access to space. It is theoretically possible, given sufficient technology, that which we might have by 2050. I think research into this topic is worthwhile, perhaps it could help in the "Near Earth Development Project". Ben: Excellent! We need more ideas like that. Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 12 15:19 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["861" "Fri" "13" "June" "1997" "00:19:37" "+0200" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "24" "starship-design: Re: Land or orbit" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA04258 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 15:19:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA04216 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 15:19:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-20.svpop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0wcIDR-000EtLC; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 00:19:37 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 860 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Land or orbit Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 00:19:37 +0200 (MET DST) Kyle wrote: >As far as pressure, I've thought about it, and can't come up with a >plausible system >for measuring it from here. Albedo would probably not work (a friend >of mine tried this, and said that the atmosphere of mars was between >8000 and 19000 >millibars!) Density wave analysis, maybe, but how do we pass density >waves 11.9 ly >to target, bounce them back, and record the information? Let alone >generate them in >the first place. If anyone has an idea, let me know. There must exist some models that can calculate this. I assume they depend on the gravitational pull (escape velocity) of the planet and its mean temperature. It seems from reading a bit on that "Alien Planet Designer" page you mentioned, that Stephen Gillett has done some work on it. Maybe you could get hold of some of his papers (or a book if he did write one). Timothy From owner-starship-design Sat Jun 14 20:18 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1712" "Sat" "14" "June" "1997" "23:16:55" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "51" "starship-design: Re: Planetary Statistics" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA14636 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 20:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout01.mail.aol.com (emout01.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.92]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA14625 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 20:17:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout01.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA28974; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 23:16:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970614231653_781227488@emout01.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1711 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: stk@sunherald.infi.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Planetary Statistics Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 23:16:55 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/12/97 2:32:53 PM, you wrote: >Greetings: > >I have performed many a calculation on the planet in question, and it is >generally >known that gravity can be determined if the diameter of the planet as >well >as its mass is known (which both are). Atmosphere compostistion is also >given >in the charter. Percentages (in my mind) could be determine by extremely >sensitive spectrographic analysis (something we might have by 2050). The >rest of the calculations can be performed quickly at the following >website: > >http://www.compulink.co.uk/~vicarage/planets/list.html > >Just click the calculate button to go to the index, and input your data. Ah, a usefull site. I'll have to add it to the LIT web site. (Did I mention a 8th grade class is reviewing it as a class project? Pity I never cleaned it up!) >As far as colonizing the planet, I should have been more specific. I >didn't >mean setting up a city-like colony there, rather establishing a >temporary >research station there (orbital platforms can only do so much). And, if >you >aren't going to land there, the public is not going to be very >enthusiastic >about it. After all, what makes this thing go up? Funding. No bucks, no >Buck >Rodgers. I agree with you on the fact that establishing a >self-sufficient colony >is a bad idea, but a temporary research station is feasible. > > Kyle R. Mcallister Oh, I think we did consider fixed exploration bases. But droped that idea in favor of large mobile rovers. Sort of like bus sized armored personel cariers After all. You can't have your survey team spend all their time siting in one area when they have a sol system of planets and moons to rough survey. Kelly From owner-starship-design Sat Jun 14 20:19 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1748" "Sat" "14" "June" "1997" "23:17:12" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "35" "Re: starship-design: just a note.." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA14663 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 20:17:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout06.mail.aol.com (emout06.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.97]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA14648 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 20:17:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout06.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA04012; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 23:17:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970614231711_-628524576@emout06.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1747 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: stevev@efn.org, owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: just a note.. Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 23:17:12 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/12/97 3:58:21 PM, stevev@efn.org (Steve VanDevender) wrote: >Bakelaar writes: > > ok, first, do you guys remember in gardens of paradise or whatever > > that book was called, arthur c. clarke made up that space elevator > > with that string that made it easy to get stuff up into space.. (yea > > thats a pretty bad description but i cant remember it :D).. well > > anyway in popsci they mention that scientists have created some type > > of carbon filament that can withstand the atmospheric pressure put on > > itself when suspended from orbit.. theres so much speculation and > > guesswork in this group, i figgered we needed a little solid fact :) > >The main technical difficulty with a skyhook is not atmospheric pressure >but finding a material with sufficient tensile strength. The skyhook is >actually a cable in geosynchronous orbit with one end touching the >ground. This requires that it be able to withstand the enormous tidal >differential between the ends, resulting in tremendous tension (not >compression!) on the cable. Other problems include anchoring the ground >end and fabricating a cable that long (as much as 46,000 miles for a >uniform cable; less if you use a counterweight on the far end) and >dealing with small but significant changes in the rotation speed of the >Earth (perhaps a movable counterweight?). > >The concept of a skyhook had been worked on for quite a while before >Clarke wrote _The Fountains of Paradise_. The idea also has serious construction and maintenence cost issues and tremendous safty issues. All in all I'm not sure it would be cost competative with the high efficency launchers that would need to be in operation before anyone could attempt to build it. Kelly From owner-starship-design Sat Jun 14 20:19 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2571" "Sat" "14" "June" "1997" "23:17:18" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "70" "Re: starship-design: We need habitats" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA14670 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 20:17:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout09.mail.aol.com (emout09.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.24]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA14652 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 20:17:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout09.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA12652; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 23:17:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970614231716_-662086688@emout09.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2570 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: arocha@srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: We need habitats Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 23:17:18 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/12/97 9:59:07 PM, you wrote: >Hello, > >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> In a message dated 6/10/97 2:08:23 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net (kyle) wrote: >> >> >Greetings fellow LIT members. >> > >> >We need some serious thought on the aspect of habitats. Once we get to >> >Tau ceti, we >> >are probably going to want to set up a habitat on the surface of Tceti >> (...) >> >> Why settle on the planet? Resorces are far more common and access able in >> space then on a planet. The danger of contamination is less. You can >> always build a earth like space colony. You can't always do that on a >> planet. Besides theirs a whole star system to explore. You can't strand all >> your resources on one rock. >> >> Kelly > > Forgive me if this has already been answered but, what about >debilitation from low-g or zero-g? Are we going to have "wheels" to >maintain "g" in stationary orbit? The ships are designed with centrafuges for this reason and for the long cruise times on route. > As for colonization or not, it would nice to see just us get there as >soon as possible. Therefore, quick-and-dirty technology - preferably >simple and tested - could be advisable. > I really do not understand the apparently immense population overhead >necessary to colonize. The ship would probably be heavily automated and >the crew would probably be trained as multi-specialists. Crew members >with children would probably have as much time to be with them as >working parents on earth do now. Would specialized child-rearing and >caring for the aged and infirm take more than .25x to 0.75x the >"operational" crew? Would the replacement ratio of children need be as >great as 1.2x or 1.3x the same? Also, in a well automated environment, >most of the work should be intellectual and "busy" work, at least until >system entry and colonization. Generally in a population now a days about 1/3rd the population works. The rest are children or in school. Or retired or sick. The large over head was from a sociology study I read on the minimum numbers of people needed to maintain a independant, self suficent, industrial nation using present day tech. (A few million) With some down sizing for future automation improvements. > By the way, look up on present research in hibernation. It probably is >reasonable to estimate that, in 50 more years - with genetic, biological >and technical advances - "cold sleep" or hibernation shall be viable for >trimester or year-long periods, if not more. > > Thats it. Thanks. > > A.C.Rocha Kelly From owner-starship-design Sat Jun 14 20:19 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2136" "Sat" "14" "June" "1997" "23:17:22" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "54" "Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA14682 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 20:17:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout13.mail.aol.com (emout13.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA14671 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 20:17:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout13.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA07052; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 23:17:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970614231720_1444132960@emout13.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2135 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: stevev@efn.org, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 23:17:22 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/12/97 1:07:47 AM, you wrote: >KellySt@aol.com writes: > > I'm less convinced that FTL is impossible. How you could do it seems to a > > ton of duling techno/physics bable. (We all probably get the same books on > > the subject.) But physics changes frequently, and dramatically. So I expect > > this impossibility will fall in a generation or six. > >I think you put it best in your public response to Kyle when you said >that FTL is probably a bit too speculative for 2050 technology, and >certainly too speculative given our current knowledge of physics. Definatly. >A revolution in physics that makes FTL possible will change a lot of >other things too. It's just not as easy as saying "yes, you really can >make something go FTL"; you have to reconcile the FTL effects with a lot >of other things. I know, and most physicists admit, that the "causal >ordering principle" is just an assumption, not a proven law of nature, >but there are also no known violations of it, making it a pretty safe >assumption. Conservation of mass was an equally universally true and fundamental assumption until a couple of decades ago. > > On the other hand if we can't do FTL I'm very sure we won't do much > > interstellar travel. The time delay simply makes it unsupportable, > > unproductive, and uninteresting. People couldn't colonize, exploration would > > be to slow, who'ld pay for wandering ships they'ld never see return anything. > > We'ld probably just build bigger and bigger scopes and study the stars that > > way. > >Sublight interstellar travel will really require a different cultural >mindset than we currently apply to exploration. It will certainly >require an outlook more oriented towards pure exploration rather than on >short-term return. More then that. The rediculasly poor return on such projects. I.E. it could be decades to centuries to get back any info. Puts them in an uncomfortable catch-22. If you really want the info, your not going to be that patient. If your not in that much of a hurry. Why not wait a couple more deacades (or centuries) for the launches? Kelly From owner-starship-design Sat Jun 14 20:19 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1242" "Sat" "14" "June" "1997" "23:17:24" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "30" "Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA14694 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 20:17:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout15.mail.aol.com (emout15.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.41]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA14678 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 20:17:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout15.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA08532; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 23:17:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970614231723_318433632@emout15.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1241 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: stk@sunherald.infi.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 23:17:24 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/12/97 1:20:01 AM, you wrote: >Addenum to previous post: > >I stopped to think about the Zero point energy idea, and I've changed my >mind. >I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that zpe might be available >by 2050. >after all, look at how far along we've come since 1940! And the >energy output is simply incredible. I read an estimate of the >overall energy density being on the order of 1093 gms/cm^3! That >could easily be used to power our starship. I think, although >many may disagree with me, that it could hold the potential to >powering a starship to relativistic speeds and, just possibly >BEYOND c. My starship design that I mentioned a few days ago, will >probably be considered at best, controversial. But I am an optimist, >and I think that it is within the scope of possibility. I'll have to >post more later on. Gotta run. And best of luck! > > Kyle Mcallister The problem is we have no idea if zero point energy can be access in any useful, much less light weight and portable system. Their are many ultra tech from mater conversion, inertia/mass distortion, kinetic energy tinkering that sound plausible (in an iffy sort of way) but are to speculative to knowledgeably discus. Kelly From owner-starship-design Sat Jun 14 20:59 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1601" "Sat" "14" "June" "1997" "21:00:15" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "33" "Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA22062 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 20:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA22030 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 20:59:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (cisco-ts17-line10.uoregon.edu [128.223.150.227]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA09389 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 20:58:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA08245; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 21:00:15 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706150400.VAA08245@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <970614231720_1444132960@emout13.mail.aol.com> References: <970614231720_1444132960@emout13.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.32 under 19.15p5 XEmacs Lucid Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1600 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 21:00:15 -0700 KellySt@aol.com writes: > >A revolution in physics that makes FTL possible will change a lot of > >other things too. It's just not as easy as saying "yes, you really can > >make something go FTL"; you have to reconcile the FTL effects with a lot > >of other things. I know, and most physicists admit, that the "causal > >ordering principle" is just an assumption, not a proven law of nature, > >but there are also no known violations of it, making it a pretty safe > >assumption. > > Conservation of mass was an equally universally true and fundamental > assumption until a couple of decades ago. Umm, so far as I've heard conservation of mass/energy has remained a proven principle in physics since it was postulated. I certainly haven't seen anyone claim to have found a violation. > >Sublight interstellar travel will really require a different cultural > >mindset than we currently apply to exploration. It will certainly > >require an outlook more oriented towards pure exploration rather than on > >short-term return. > > More then that. The rediculasly poor return on such projects. I.E. it could > be decades to centuries to get back any info. Puts them in an uncomfortable > catch-22. If you really want the info, your not going to be that patient. > If your not in that much of a hurry. Why not wait a couple more deacades > (or centuries) for the launches? That's part of the change in mindset. What if you just wanted to find out for yourself? In any case any information found can be sent back at c, making the return as fast as physically possible. From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 15 08:35 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2563" "Sun" "15" "June" "1997" "11:35:10" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "62" "Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA21989 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 08:35:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout08.mail.aol.com (emout08.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.23]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA21978 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 08:35:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout08.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id LAA10674; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 11:35:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970615113507_-1865540662@emout08.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2562 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: stevev@efn.org, owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 11:35:10 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/14/97 10:02:00 PM, stevev@efn.org (Steve VanDevender) wrote: >KellySt@aol.com writes: > > >A revolution in physics that makes FTL possible will change a lot of > > >other things too. It's just not as easy as saying "yes, you really can > > >make something go FTL"; you have to reconcile the FTL effects with a lot > > >of other things. I know, and most physicists admit, that the "causal > > >ordering principle" is just an assumption, not a proven law of nature, > > >but there are also no known violations of it, making it a pretty safe > > >assumption. > > > > Conservation of mass was an equally universally true and fundamental > > assumption until a couple of decades ago. > >Umm, so far as I've heard conservation of mass/energy has remained a >proven principle in physics since it was postulated. I certainly >haven't seen anyone claim to have found a violation. But you forget. The rule was that mass was always conserved, AND Energy was conserved. We didn't know a century ago that you could convert one to the other. Its only been since then that we take about the conservation of mass/energy. I.E. that we talk about them as interchangable. In the same way way didn't used to think time or space were bendable things. Now its a common assumption. > > >Sublight interstellar travel will really require a different cultural > > >mindset than we currently apply to exploration. It will certainly > > >require an outlook more oriented towards pure exploration rather than on > > >short-term return. > > > > More then that. The rediculasly poor return on such projects. I.E. it could > > be decades to centuries to get back any info. Puts them in an uncomfortable > > catch-22. If you really want the info, your not going to be that patient. > > If your not in that much of a hurry. Why not wait a couple more deacades > > (or centuries) for the launches? > >That's part of the change in mindset. What if you just wanted to find >out for yourself? > >In any case any information found can be sent back at c, making the >return as fast as physically possible. But you could get it back faster with telescopes, and with less cost. Beside, a rich explorer might deside to spend his her life on a voyage knowing he/she would never be able to return the info to the home civilization left behind. (Yes someone would be back their, but they woun't be your civilization or culture.) But civilizations (and voters or investors) don't routinely sign big checks that they know they never see a return on. Kelly From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 15 10:53 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["974" "Sun" "15" "June" "1997" "13:52:43" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "33" "Re: starship-design: Atmosphere is necesary!" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA15834 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 10:53:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout16.mail.aol.com (emout16.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.42]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA15822 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 10:53:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout16.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id NAA19945; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 13:52:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970615135242_519782193@emout16.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 973 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: stk@sunherald.infi.net, owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Atmosphere is necesary! Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 13:52:43 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/15/97 11:36:14 AM, stk@sunherald.infi.net (kyle) wrote: >Greetings again. > >Found something interesting: An old newsletter circa 4/29/96 (its in the >records of old newsletters) said that you had sent a flyby mission. I >saw >the fractal images, so I ask myself, "why couldn't we get an atmosphere >reading?" >Heck, it was close enough, the green indicates life, the water is there. >How >about Atmospheric compostion. We desperately need to have this. Please >advise. >Perhaps I'm mistaken about the flyby, but composition is necessary! >Respond >whenever you have time. > > Thanks, > Kyle Mcallister High res telescope could see the planets as well as a small fly-by probe. Atmospheric composition would be easy. I 'think' you can figure out atmospheric density by imaging the limb of the planet via the scopes. Not sure thou. Kelly P.S. Of course it would be argued that if you can get to much info via the scopes, why send the ships? From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 15 12:37 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3394" "Sun" "15" "June" "1997" "13:37:19" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "80" "Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA07136 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 12:37:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA07121 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 12:37:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp8.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp8.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.80]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA01161 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 15:37:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33A4527E.76DA@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <970615113507_-1865540662@emout08.mail.aol.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 3393 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 13:37:19 -0700 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 6/14/97 10:02:00 PM, stevev@efn.org (Steve VanDevender) > wrote: > > >KellySt@aol.com writes: > > > >A revolution in physics that makes FTL possible will change a lot of > > > >other things too. It's just not as easy as saying "yes, you really can > > > >make something go FTL"; you have to reconcile the FTL effects with a lot > > > >of other things. I know, and most physicists admit, that the "causal > > > >ordering principle" is just an assumption, not a proven law of nature, > > > >but there are also no known violations of it, making it a pretty safe > > > >assumption. > > > > > > Conservation of mass was an equally universally true and fundamental > > > assumption until a couple of decades ago. > > > >Umm, so far as I've heard conservation of mass/energy has remained a > >proven principle in physics since it was postulated. I certainly > >haven't seen anyone claim to have found a violation. > > But you forget. The rule was that mass was always conserved, AND Energy was > conserved. We didn't know a century ago that you could convert one to the > other. Its only been since then that we take about the conservation of > mass/energy. I.E. that we talk about them as interchangable. > > In the same way way didn't used to think time or space were bendable things. > Now its a common assumption. > And the same way most scientists seem to think that FTL is impossible. (I doubt it) > > > >Sublight interstellar travel will really require a different cultural > > > >mindset than we currently apply to exploration. It will certainly > > > >require an outlook more oriented towards pure exploration rather than on > > > >short-term return. > > > > > > More then that. The rediculasly poor return on such projects. I.E. it > could > > > be decades to centuries to get back any info. Puts them in an > uncomfortable > > > catch-22. If you really want the info, your not going to be that > patient. > > > If your not in that much of a hurry. Why not wait a couple more > deacades > > > (or centuries) for the launches? Good idea. Wait till circa 2090, when we might have FTL, then build and launch. No use wasting money on a slow ship, when later on you can build a FAST ship. > >That's part of the change in mindset. What if you just wanted to find > >out for yourself? > > > >In any case any information found can be sent back at c, making the > >return as fast as physically possible. > > But you could get it back faster with telescopes, and with less cost. > Beside, a rich explorer might deside to spend his her life on a voyage > knowing he/she would never be able to return the info to the home > civilization left behind. (Yes someone would be back their, but they woun't > be your civilization or culture.) But civilizations (and voters or > investors) don't routinely sign big checks that they know they never see a > return on. > > Kelly I think that the problem with most scientists is that we would like to think that we know everything about physics, and that there are not an incredible amount of alternative posibilities and situations which we have not yet begun to understand. We have only begun to learn. Many a number of unexplored posibilities await us. We are just beginning the journey. In my opinion, I think we should consider FTL as possible in our mission. Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 15 13:03 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1513" "Sun" "15" "June" "1997" "13:04:28" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "27" "Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA12465 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 13:03:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA12451 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 13:03:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (cisco-ts8-line8.uoregon.edu [128.223.150.72]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA03934 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 13:02:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA10365; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 13:04:28 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706152004.NAA10365@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <33A4527E.76DA@sunherald.infi.net> References: <970615113507_-1865540662@emout08.mail.aol.com> <33A4527E.76DA@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.32 under 19.15p5 XEmacs Lucid Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1512 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 13:04:28 -0700 kyle writes: > I think that the problem with most scientists is that we would like > to think that we know everything about physics, and that there are > not an incredible amount of alternative posibilities and situations > which we have not yet begun to understand. We have only begun to > learn. Many a number of unexplored posibilities await us. We are just > beginning the journey. In my opinion, I think we should consider FTL > as possible in our mission. The starship-design exercise is to design a starship and interstellar exploration mission that can be reasonably expected to be buildable in 2050. That means we are being intentionally conservative about the technology used. While we sometimes extrapolate technological trends in making assumptions about the materials and techniques that will be available, for the most part nobody has tried to postulate technology that violates _currently known_ laws of physics, because that's all we have to work with now. The biggest problem with trying to design an FTL starship today is that no one, not even the most expert physicist, has the slightest idea how FTL could be realistically accomplished in a manner that would allow it to be used in a starship drive system. If you don't know the size and requirements of the drive system, how can you design a ship around it? On the other hand, while the requirements of a relativistic drive system are difficult, they are not physically impossible, and it might be possible to build one in 2050. From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 15 14:47 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6180" "Sun" "15" "June" "1997" "16:20:17" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "78" "RE: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA05638 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 14:47:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA05619 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 14:47:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p34.gnt.com (x2p2.gnt.com [204.49.68.207]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA29612 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 16:47:36 -0500 Received: by x2p34.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC79AB.D219B580@x2p34.gnt.com>; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 16:47:33 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC79AB.D219B580@x2p34.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id OAA05621 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 6179 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 16:20:17 -0500 Somehow I think that the INITIAL probes to go out will be "robotic" if you can call something that is intelligent enough to explore an extra solar system on its own, perform self repair (heal) and perhaps even reproduce (clone) itself a robot. Self aware or not, such an entity fits most definitions of life. This avatar would not even need to be particularly large, something on the order of a Starwisp type of probe that was capable of building additional capability in the target system if it found sufficient resources (and reason) to do so. The first human explorer would already possess relatively complete astrography as well as limited geographical and biological and environmental data. Starwisps can be mass produced cheaply in large numbers, accelerated to much larger fractions of light speed by smaller and less numerous lasers (or whatever propulsion system may then be available) and would provide an initial return of information far quicker for less cost than a large manned expedition would. The ideal chronology would run something like this: 1) Survey of extra-solar system by Deep Space Array and Lunar Observatories a) No planets or significant items of interest found - forget it for now b) Habitable planets or potential resources/scientifically interesting - go to 2) 2) Fly by exploration by first generation Starwisp a) Planets not habitable/resource poor - forget it for now b) Inhabited - QUARANTINE - go to 3) b) Confirmation of habitable planets or resources etc. - go to 3) 3) Robotic exploration by Avatar a) Inhabited by intelligent non-spacefaring (Level 0) species - build appropriate research outpost and maintain quarantine, no contact yet. b) Inhabited by intelligent spacefaring (Level 1) species - send second generation Starwisp and maintain quarantine, no contact yet. c)Uninhabited or not obviously inhabited - build Outpost and begin automated development of spaceborne infrastructure preparatory to arrival of Survey Mission. 4) Outpost or Survey Mission a) Inhabited Level 0 civilization (we are technically a Level 0 civilization) - Surveillance and intelligence gathering by automated probe until limit of technology to produce information is reached and determination is made whether closer observation is warranted or necessary. Establish Research Outpost. Maintain QUARANTINE. b) Uninhabited - send Industrial Outpost Mission, Research Outpost Mission or Survey Mission as appropriate - go to 5) 5) Colony Mission - if appropriate. Definition of terms: Avatar - a relatively large autonomous, robotic probe capable of deceleration into an extra solar system, movement within the system, exploration of the system, repair/replication of itself. Constructs communication facilities and perhaps limited facilities to aid in the next phase of exploration such as fuel gathering or construction of lasers or some such. This is a one way trip. Colony Mission - Large (Explorer Class) starship carrying sufficient personnel to establish a permanent colony either in orbit, on a moon or on a planet as necessary. This is primarily a one way trip for the colonists but may be a round trip for the vessel and crew. Outpost Mission - Large (Explorer Class) starship carrying personnel and equipment to establish a primarily space-borne colony for either research or industrial development. This mission may be designed as one way or round trip for the initial trip depending upon whether there are plans for subsequent trips or no for crew rotation. Starwisp - Originally a featherweight lightsail probe launched with the aid of lasers on a one way fly-by of nearby star systems. Any propulsion system may be considered in the context of a featherweight probe however. This is a one way trip but may be directed through multiple star systems if vehicle lifetime permits. Survey Mission - Medium (Pathfinder Class) starship carrying primarily scientific and technical crew to study and fully explore a new system. This mission is designed to return to our solar system. As you can see, exploring the universe is not quite like Star Trek or Buck Rodgers. It will be a fairly lengthy time consuming process for each and every new system. The cost will tax the mother planet heavily at first, but if enough self replication is built in, the first Avatars can automatically build and launch the next Starwisps in a leap frog fashion that will rapidly cascade into a fairly complete knowledge of at least our local region of space. The only thing I didn't mention was what if we send a probe to a system with a Level 1 civilization...well, I don't expect the probe to get away undetected, so the response is pretty much up to them, they will know about us LONG before we find out about them. Lee Parker Long experience has taught me not to believe in the limitations indicated by purely theoretical considerations. These - as we well know - are based on insufficient knowledge of all the relevant factors." Guglielmo Marconi -----Original Message----- From: KellySt@aol.com [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, June 15, 1997 10:35 AM To: stevev@efn.org; owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu; starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source In a message dated 6/14/97 10:02:00 PM, stevev@efn.org (Steve VanDevender) wrote: But you forget. The rule was that mass was always conserved, AND Energy was conserved. We didn't know a century ago that you could convert one to the other. Its only been since then that we take about the conservation of mass/energy. I.E. that we talk about them as interchangable. In the same way way didn't used to think time or space were bendable things. Now its a common assumption. But you could get it back faster with telescopes, and with less cost. Beside, a rich explorer might deside to spend his her life on a voyage knowing he/she would never be able to return the info to the home civilization left behind. (Yes someone would be back their, but they woun't be your civilization or culture.) But civilizations (and voters or investors) don't routinely sign big checks that they know they never see a return on. Kelly From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 15 14:52 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2950" "Sun" "15" "June" "1997" "15:52:14" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "71" "Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA06273 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 14:52:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA06261 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 14:52:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp8.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp8.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.80]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA04201 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 17:52:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33A4721E.120D@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <970615113507_-1865540662@emout08.mail.aol.com> <33A4527E.76DA@sunherald.infi.net> <199706152004.NAA10365@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 2949 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 15:52:14 -0700 Steve VanDevender wrote: > > kyle writes: > > I think that the problem with most scientists is that we would like > > to think that we know everything about physics, and that there are > > not an incredible amount of alternative posibilities and situations > > which we have not yet begun to understand. We have only begun to > > learn. Many a number of unexplored posibilities await us. We are just > > beginning the journey. In my opinion, I think we should consider FTL > > as possible in our mission. > > The starship-design exercise is to design a starship and interstellar > exploration mission that can be reasonably expected to be buildable in > 2050. That means we are being intentionally conservative about the > technology used. While we sometimes extrapolate technological trends in > making assumptions about the materials and techniques that will be > available, for the most part nobody has tried to postulate technology > that violates _currently known_ laws of physics, because that's all we > have to work with now. FTL doesn't necessarily violate physics. Or consider these: distance modification; The ability to make sublight journeys to stars by quantum jumping; That has been done in laboratories. Any particle physist will tell you that. You'd be surprised at how many scientists have postulated "technology that violates currently known laws of physics". As I said earlier, physics is almost entirely an unknown for us. We haven't begun to unlock its secrets. Maybe FTL doesn't violate physics. There have been scattered reports of slight FTL transversal. (E-mail me if interested). I know most of you say that these reports are just junk science, but thats exactly what was said to the Wright brothers. > The biggest problem with trying to design an FTL starship today is that > no one, not even the most expert physicist, has the slightest idea how > FTL could be realistically accomplished in a manner that would allow it > to be used in a starship drive system. Not necesarily true. >If you don't know the size and > requirements of the drive system, how can you design a ship around it? Hmmm...Aha! Estimate! (we've done plenty of it) > On the other hand, while the requirements of a relativistic drive system > are difficult, they are not physically impossible, and it might be > possible to build one in 2050. FTL may not be impossible. My conclusion: I still stick by FTL as being a good propulsion system to use on our ship. (whichever one we build) Giant sail ships wouldn't work with it though- distortion would be so large, it would require ENORMOUS energy to create and maintain it without risking ship's integrity. Sail ships are dangerous even if used for sublight travel: One stray meteor shower and there went your mission, your crew, and several hundred billion dollars. My design does incorporate FTL travel. Similar to Alcubierres warp drive, but more...2050ish. Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 15 16:18 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3838" "Sun" "15" "June" "1997" "16:19:12" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "80" "Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA25721 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 16:18:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA25703 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 16:18:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (cisco-ts17-line5.uoregon.edu [128.223.150.222]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA19274 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 16:17:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA10924; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 16:19:12 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706152319.QAA10924@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <33A4721E.120D@sunherald.infi.net> References: <970615113507_-1865540662@emout08.mail.aol.com> <33A4527E.76DA@sunherald.infi.net> <199706152004.NAA10365@tzadkiel.efn.org> <33A4721E.120D@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.32 under 19.15p5 XEmacs Lucid Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 3837 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 16:19:12 -0700 kyle writes: > FTL doesn't necessarily violate physics. If you say this, then you don't understand FTL or physics well enough yet. Find and read a copy of _Spacetime Physics_ by Taylor and Wheeler. > Or consider these: distance modification; The ability to make > sublight journeys to stars by quantum jumping; That has been done in > laboratories. Any particle physist will tell you that. If FTL were as easy as you say it would have been done by now. The few FTL effects that are thought to exist in particle physics don't translate to macroscopic objects, and even when postulated don't transmit information or mass faster than light. > You'd be surprised at how many scientists have postulated "technology > that violates currently known laws of physics". As I said earlier, > physics is almost entirely an unknown for us. We haven't begun to > unlock its secrets. Maybe FTL doesn't violate physics. There have > been scattered reports of slight FTL transversal. (E-mail me if > interested). I know most of you say that these reports are just junk > science, but thats exactly what was said to the Wright brothers. Whether FTL might be possible isn't the point. The point is that we are trying to build a starship that uses REAL physics, not imaginary, unknown physics. We're trying to build a starship that can be built knowing what we know now, not what we might now some time in the future. That's all there is to it. > > The biggest problem with trying to design an FTL starship today is that > > no one, not even the most expert physicist, has the slightest idea how > > FTL could be realistically accomplished in a manner that would allow it > > to be used in a starship drive system. > > Not necesarily true. If it's not true, then demonstrate FTL on a macroscopic object. > >If you don't know the size and > > requirements of the drive system, how can you design a ship around it? > > Hmmm...Aha! Estimate! (we've done plenty of it) Estimate based on what? We can estimate the parameters of a reaction drive or sail system that can bring a ship to relativistic speeds based on physics and the known properties of matter. If you don't have a working theory of FTL, then it's pretty hard to make the same kinds of estimates. > > On the other hand, while the requirements of a relativistic drive system > > are difficult, they are not physically impossible, and it might be > > possible to build one in 2050. > > FTL may not be impossible. It's not possible now, so we're not going to design a ship using something we don't know will work. That's basic engineering. > My conclusion: I still stick by FTL as being a good propulsion system to > use on our ship. (whichever one we build) Giant sail ships wouldn't > work with it though- distortion would be so large, it would require ENORMOUS > energy to create and maintain it without risking ship's integrity. Sail > ships are dangerous even if used for sublight travel: One stray meteor > shower and there went your mission, your crew, and several hundred billion > dollars. My design does incorporate FTL travel. Similar to Alcubierres warp > drive, but more...2050ish. Space travel is dangerous, period, whether you use FTL or not. Who's to say that FTL wouldn't be more dangerous than sublight travel, or that going FTL will make you immune from collisions? Even imaginary FTL drives in fiction are often risky (Larry Niven's "hyperspace" being a classic exampe; get too close to a mass in hyperspace and you're gone). As much as anything, our universe seems to be constructed on the principle "you don't get something for nothing." If it's really possible to extract "zero-point energy" or go faster than light or do other things we don't know how to do now then they will probably come with a high price tag. From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 15 17:38 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5700" "Sun" "15" "June" "1997" "18:37:54" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "133" "Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA14043 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 17:38:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA14008 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 17:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp8.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp8.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.80]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA29155 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 20:37:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33A498F1.6CA4@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <970615113507_-1865540662@emout08.mail.aol.com> <33A4527E.76DA@sunherald.infi.net> <199706152004.NAA10365@tzadkiel.efn.org> <33A4721E.120D@sunherald.infi.net> <199706152319.QAA10924@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 5699 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 18:37:54 -0700 Steve VanDevender wrote: > > kyle writes: > > FTL doesn't necessarily violate physics. > > If you say this, then you don't understand FTL or physics well enough > yet. Find and read a copy of _Spacetime Physics_ by Taylor and > Wheeler. The fact of the matter is, no one knows physics well enough. > > > Or consider these: distance modification; The ability to make > > sublight journeys to stars by quantum jumping; That has been done in > > laboratories. Any particle physist will tell you that. > > If FTL were as easy as you say it would have been done by now. The few > FTL effects that are thought to exist in particle physics don't > translate to macroscopic objects, and even when postulated don't > transmit information or mass faster than light. Particle physics not apply to macroscopic objects? If so, I couldn't be writing this in the first place-Monitors would not work. And no, FTL might not have been done by now. The other great discoverors were told the same: example: the Wright brothers were told"If God meant for us to fly he'd have made our bones as hollow as our heads. We would already be flying!" > > > You'd be surprised at how many scientists have postulated "technology > > that violates currently known laws of physics". As I said earlier, > > physics is almost entirely an unknown for us. We haven't begun to > > unlock its secrets. Maybe FTL doesn't violate physics. There have > > been scattered reports of slight FTL transversal. (E-mail me if > > interested). I know most of you say that these reports are just junk > > science, but thats exactly what was said to the Wright brothers. > > Whether FTL might be possible isn't the point. The point is that we are > trying to build a starship that uses REAL physics, not imaginary, > unknown physics. We're trying to build a starship that can be built > knowing what we know now, not what we might now some time in the future. > That's all there is to it. All great discoveries were done by people willing to stick out their necks, and try the unknown. If we can't risk this, we can't walk in their footsteps. > > > > The biggest problem with trying to design an FTL starship today is that > > > no one, not even the most expert physicist, has the slightest idea how > > > FTL could be realistically accomplished in a manner that would allow it > > > to be used in a starship drive system. > > > > Not necesarily true. > > If it's not true, then demonstrate FTL on a macroscopic object. I'm serious when I say: I'm working on it. > > > >If you don't know the size and > > > requirements of the drive system, how can you design a ship around it? > > > > Hmmm...Aha! Estimate! (we've done plenty of it) > > Estimate based on what? We can estimate the parameters of a reaction > drive or sail system that can bring a ship to relativistic speeds based > on physics and the known properties of matter. If you don't have a > working theory of FTL, then it's pretty hard to make the same kinds of > estimates. There could be unknowns even for relativistic travel. Let me ask all of you: Has anybody sped an object up to relativistic velocities in deep space? A MACROSCOPIC object? That is unknown physics right there. > > > > On the other hand, while the requirements of a relativistic drive system > > > are difficult, they are not physically impossible, and it might be > > > possible to build one in 2050. > > > > FTL may not be impossible. > > It's not possible now, so we're not going to design a ship using > something we don't know will work. That's basic engineering. We don't know if relativistic propulsion is possible using what we know now. > > > My conclusion: I still stick by FTL as being a good propulsion system to > > use on our ship. (whichever one we build) Giant sail ships wouldn't > > work with it though- distortion would be so large, it would require ENORMOUS > > energy to create and maintain it without risking ship's integrity. Sail > > ships are dangerous even if used for sublight travel: One stray meteor > > shower and there went your mission, your crew, and several hundred billion > > dollars. My design does incorporate FTL travel. Similar to Alcubierres warp > > drive, but more...2050ish. > > Space travel is dangerous, period, whether you use FTL or not. Who's to > say that FTL wouldn't be more dangerous than sublight travel, or that > going FTL will make you immune from collisions? Even imaginary FTL > drives in fiction are often risky (Larry Niven's "hyperspace" being a > classic exampe; get too close to a mass in hyperspace and you're gone). > > As much as anything, our universe seems to be constructed on the > principle "you don't get something for nothing." If it's really > possible to extract "zero-point energy" or go faster than light or do > other things we don't know how to do now then they will probably come > with a high price tag. Then explain to me how the Department of energy, Motorola, International Nuclear agency, and scores of others are interested in an amatuer scientist, I cannot remember his name, who was on national television (Good Morning America to be precise) who built a device that can take in energy and produce up to 100,000 times as much energy as is input into it. I wonder if perhaps I should not have said that I am 14. It seems to have ruined my chances of anyone listening to me. I do not mean to be rude, but I am not just some dumb kid who has a "star-trek fantasy". I am a scientist, and a dedicated one. In the words of Carl Sagan: "The suppresion of uncomfortable ideas may be common, but it is not the path to knowledge." Regards, Kyle R. Mcallister From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 15 20:24 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6335" "Sun" "15" "June" "1997" "20:25:22" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "128" "Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA18834 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 20:24:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA18810 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 20:24:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (cisco-ts8-line15.uoregon.edu [128.223.150.79]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA10806; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 20:23:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA11511; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 20:25:22 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706160325.UAA11511@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <33A498F1.6CA4@sunherald.infi.net> References: <970615113507_-1865540662@emout08.mail.aol.com> <33A4527E.76DA@sunherald.infi.net> <199706152004.NAA10365@tzadkiel.efn.org> <33A4721E.120D@sunherald.infi.net> <199706152319.QAA10924@tzadkiel.efn.org> <33A498F1.6CA4@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.32 under 19.15p5 XEmacs Lucid Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 6334 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: kyle Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 20:25:22 -0700 kyle writes: > Steve VanDevender wrote: > > kyle writes: > > > FTL doesn't necessarily violate physics. > > > > If you say this, then you don't understand FTL or physics well enough > > yet. Find and read a copy of _Spacetime Physics_ by Taylor and > > Wheeler. > > The fact of the matter is, no one knows physics well enough. We know physics well enough to do a great many things. I am serious when I say that you should read _Spacetime Physics_. It is easily accessible to anyone who knows basic algebra and is the best introduction to relativistic physics I have seen. > Particle physics not apply to macroscopic objects? Quantum effects apply only at the quantum scale. The pseudo-FTL effects you are apparently referring to, such as quantum tunneling, apply only on the quantum scale to quantum-sized particles. The probability of a macroscopic object undergoing quantum tunneling is literally so close to zero as to be impossible in our universe. > All great discoveries were done by people willing to stick out their necks, > and try the unknown. If we can't risk this, we can't walk in their footsteps. I'll say this one more time, and please pay attention: The reason we are not designing an FTL ship is that there is no understood, practical, demonstrated means of going FTL. It doesn't matter that we might, or might not, discover FTL in the future. This isn't about whether you should or should not believe that FTL is possible. This is about not having a known method of FTL travel available now, and no reason to believe, based on knowledge available to us now, that FTL will be possible in 2050. The purpose of this list is to discuss _practical_ starship designs, one where every element can be justified using knowledge we have now or that we can reasonably expect to have by 2050, based on what we do know now. I would love to have FTL, but there's a difference between wanting something to be possible and knowing it to be possible. > > If it's not true, then demonstrate FTL on a macroscopic object. > > I'm serious when I say: I'm working on it. Good luck. If you find it, we'll all be very excited. > > Estimate based on what? We can estimate the parameters of a reaction > > drive or sail system that can bring a ship to relativistic speeds based > > on physics and the known properties of matter. If you don't have a > > working theory of FTL, then it's pretty hard to make the same kinds of > > estimates. > > There could be unknowns even for relativistic travel. Let me ask all of you: > Has anybody sped an object up to relativistic velocities in deep space? A > MACROSCOPIC object? That is unknown physics right there. > > > It's not possible now, so we're not going to design a ship using > > something we don't know will work. That's basic engineering. > > We don't know if relativistic propulsion is possible using what we know > now. We see quasars receding from us at very high fractions of C. We see matter spinning around galactic cores and being ejected in galactic jets at substantial fractions of C. We see neutron stars spinning at substantial fractions of C. All of these material objects show behavior predicted exactly by relativistic physics. More importantly, relativistic physics, as we now know it, does not in any way prohibit a material object from traveling at any speed less than C, but does prevent anything from traveling faster than that. Based on physics we know now, and that has been amply demonstrated by experiment and observation, relativistic space travel _is_ possible. > > Space travel is dangerous, period, whether you use FTL or not. Who's to > > say that FTL wouldn't be more dangerous than sublight travel, or that > > going FTL will make you immune from collisions? Even imaginary FTL > > drives in fiction are often risky (Larry Niven's "hyperspace" being a > > classic exampe; get too close to a mass in hyperspace and you're gone). > > > > As much as anything, our universe seems to be constructed on the > > principle "you don't get something for nothing." If it's really > > possible to extract "zero-point energy" or go faster than light or do > > other things we don't know how to do now then they will probably come > > with a high price tag. > > Then explain to me how the Department of energy, Motorola, > International Nuclear agency, and scores of others are interested in > an amatuer scientist, I cannot remember his name, who was on national > television (Good Morning America to be precise) who built a device > that can take in energy and produce up to 100,000 times as much > energy as is input into it. I'm sure they're interested on the off-chance it might be true, but it will have to be experimentally verified by others before it will be accepted as true. Remember "cold fusion"? (Perhaps not, you were only about 7 at the time.) Two chemists claimed that they could obtain more energy by electrolyzing water with a platinum electrode than they put in. Many, many other scientists tried to verify this and couldn't. As a result, nobody believes now that "cold fusion" is really possible by that means. > I wonder if perhaps I should not have said that I am 14. It seems to > have ruined my chances of anyone listening to me. I do not mean to be > rude, but I am not just some dumb kid who has a "star-trek > fantasy". I am a scientist, and a dedicated one. In the words of Carl > Sagan: "The suppresion of uncomfortable ideas may be common, but it > is not the path to knowledge." If you want to criticize current scientific theories, then the only way to be taken seriously is to do so from a position of knowledge. Many people criticize theories because they don't understand them, or think that they've come up with something better, but unless they can demonstrate that the existing theory is inadequate by constructing and running an experiment that produces an effect it doesn't predict, and their theory does, then no one will believe them. And, to repeat myself one more time, this is not about whether you should believe that FTL is possible or not. It's simply that we're interested in starship designs that don't have blank boxes saying "insert FTL drive here", unless that drive can be explained and demonstrated in reality. From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 16 03:10 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["947" "Mon" "16" "June" "1997" "12:10:37" "+0200" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "28" "starship-design: FTL & ZPE Be more specific..." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA26860 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 03:10:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA26845 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 03:10:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-06.svpop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0wdYk9-000HkYC; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 12:10:37 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 946 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: FTL & ZPE Be more specific... Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 12:10:37 +0200 (MET DST) Hello again Kyle, Some of what you wrote: >FTL doesn't necessarily violate physics. Or consider these: distance >modification; >The ability to make sublight journeys to stars by quantum jumping; That >has been done in laboratories. Any particle physist will tell you that. They can also tell you that the energies needed are high and the distances are small compared to lightyears. >>If you don't know the size and requirements of the drive system, how can >>you design a ship around it? > >Hmmm...Aha! Estimate! (we've done plenty of it) (I wonder who you mean with "we"?) Can you tell us some estimates? If so, please do tell us how you got to these numbers, that would help us to verify and learn about the principle. FTL travel may not be useful at all if it needs much more energy than STL travel, so besides the technique to travel FTL we might also need exotic power supplies. Sure you mention ZPE, tell us about that too. Timothy From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 16 07:56 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil] ["3154" "Mon" "16" "June" "1997" "08:56:40" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" "<33A56237.20CF@sunherald.infi.net>" "84" "starship-design: More Specific about FTL/ZPE" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA15204 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 07:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA15187 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 07:56:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp10.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp10.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.82]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA30223 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 10:56:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33A56237.20CF@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 3153 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: More Specific about FTL/ZPE Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 08:56:40 -0700 To Starship newsletter/Timothy Van Der Linden: Correct. Quantum tunneling is out. It may have some residual effects that we don't understand yet however. I didn't intend to imply that I wanted to use it as a drive system by itself. I should have clarified. My apologies. Maybe It would be possible to travel to Tau Ceti at relativistic velocity, and later on construct some sort of rapid transit/FTL passage between here and tc. There's that nagging problem: Where do we get exotic matter? Oh, well... When I said "We have done plenty of it (estimating)", I meant scientists in general, but mostly the groups I work with on FTL, ZPE, and DST. Most of their claims don't hold up: Once they were excited about the fact that superconducting coils twitch when current is applied. I told them to try it in a vacuum. No twitching then. I guess they hadn't heard of transient electro- -magnetic effects. But there have been some of their ideas that have worked out. I have tried some, but so far the results are inconclusive. And to build superconductors I need to find a parts to build a liquid nitrogen bath, as well as other things. I cannot give an exact size for the drive, but I would say that in order for it to give enough space so as to prevent tidal disruption of the starship, a radius of at least 1.25 ship radii (longest dimension, probably length). As far as the drive weight, it wouldn't have to be exceptionally heavy, but it would be big. This is just a theory, but I would use a lightweight, superconducting metal for its construction. I don't know, maybe it won't work at all, but it is interesting. The drive segments (probably 2, one in front, other in back) would be placed as I said earlier at the very least 1.25 ship radii in front and back of the starships non-drive portion. These estimates are the result of long study, and "best-guess". As I've said numerous times, ZPE is a real thing. It has been proven. Many scientists don't want to believe it, but I figure it is for the simple reason that it defies most current understanding. However it has been witnessed, it has been patented, and numerous companies and government organizations are interested in it immensly. The government is a hard thing to convince, so it must be true. ZPE is theoretically accomplished by placing two charged superconducting plates within a nanometer of one another. Negative energy density has been witnessed in the casimir cavity. The most recently published idea is a device that can generate up to 100,000 times as much energy as is put into it. It was shown on "Good Morning America",a national television program, and the INA, DOE, Motorola, and many others are offering funds to get first grabs at this. Imagine how mad the petroleum industries would get if they use this for powerplants! Alas, a problem: these things make ungodly amounts of heat. I think if all of us at LIT work together, we could at least get a theory on how to build something like this. Its risky, but if we're scientists, then risk is unavoidable. One last thing, Steve Vandevender: Is _Spacetime Physics_ a book or a paper? I'm interested. Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 16 08:07 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["538" "Mon" "16" "June" "1997" "09:06:54" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "17" "starship-design: Aw, darnit!" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA18940 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 08:07:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA18889 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 08:07:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp10.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp10.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.82]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA01457 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 11:07:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33A5649D.727F@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 537 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Aw, darnit! Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 09:06:54 -0700 I forgot something: My server is having problems, and I have been notified that it will be out until 12:00pm U.S. CST today. I will be unable to post for a while or answer emails. Remember Murphy's 3rd and 4th laws: 3rd: Anything that can go wrong will go wrong 4th: If there is a possibilty of something going wrong, that which would cause the most frustration will be the one to go wrong. Corollary: If there is a worst time for something to go wrong, it will happen then. (this is how I relieve my frustration) Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 16 14:04 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4165" "Mon" "16" "June" "1997" "23:03:52" "+0200" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "94" "Re: starship-design: More Specific about FTL/ZPE" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA12380 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 14:03:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA12298 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 14:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-28.svpop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0wdiwK-000FfYC; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 23:03:52 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 4164 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: More Specific about FTL/ZPE Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 23:03:52 +0200 (MET DST) Kyle, You wrote: >Maybe It would be possible to travel to Tau Ceti at relativistic >velocity, and later on construct some sort of rapid transit/FTL passage >between here and tc. There's that nagging problem: Where do we get exotic >matter? Oh, well... That "exotic matter" is just a terminology, what the writer (Miguel Alcubierre) probably means is that he doesn't want to speculate about how we might transform space-time. It is likely that the presence of energy/matter will do the transformation. My guess though is that the energy densities needed are far beyond what we like it too be. It are these energy densities that this group may be interested in. How can they be accomplished? >When I said "We have done plenty of it (estimating)", I meant scientists >in general, but mostly the groups I work with on FTL, ZPE, and DST. Most >of their claims don't hold up: Once they were excited about the fact >that superconducting coils twitch when current is applied. I told them to try >it in a vacuum. No twitching then. I guess they hadn't heard of transient >electro-magnetic effects. But there have been some of their ideas that have >worked out. (What does DST stand for?) What "twitching" are you talking about, you don't mean the "Josephson effect", don't you? Why do you say "Most of their claims don't hold up"? It doesn't strengthen your case... >I have tried some, but so far the results are inconclusive. And to build >superconductors I need to find a parts to build a liquid nitrogen bath, as >well as other things. You've tried *some*? (What exactly do you mean?) Are you talking about ZPE? >I cannot give an exact size for the drive, but I would say that in order >for it to give enough space so as to prevent tidal disruption of the >starship, a radius of at least 1.25 ship radii (longest dimension, probably >length). >As far as the drive weight, it wouldn't have to be exceptionally heavy, but >it would be big. >This is just a theory, but I would use a lightweight, superconducting metal >for its construction. I don't know, maybe it won't work at all, but it is >interesting. >The drive segments (probably 2, one in front, other in back) would be placed >as I said earlier at the very least 1.25 ship radii in front and back of the >starships non-drive portion. These estimates are the result of long study, >and "best-guess". Does this idea have a name, so that we might find more information about it? Or can you give us (me) more pointers? >ZPE is theoretically accomplished by placing two charged superconducting >plates within a nanometer of one another. When you say "accomplished", what do you mean with that word? >From what I've read about this "Casimir effect", all that is shown, is that energy is present, but the same would be true for two electrical energy present between electrically charged plates. As result we can't use the Casimir effect to turn it into something useful. >Negative energy density has been witnessed in the casimir cavity. Negative *energy* or *particles(wave packets)* with negative energy? Quantum physics indeed tells us about virtual particles (particles with negative energy), they are at a lot of places where forces play a role. Even between two electrically charged plates there are virtual particles (photons). The trouble is that we cannot turn around the negative energy into positive energy. >The most recently published idea is a device that can >generate up to 100,000 times as much energy as is put into it. Put into it is a relative term. Normal batteries aren't charged in advance either, but we don't assume that they get their energy from ZPE. Keeping ZPE apart from another (yet not fully understood) phenomenon is essential to not confuse other people. I'm suggesting that the device(s) you are talking about, may not tap ZPE at all. All that is known, is that the energy output per mass-unit lies above that what we can expect from chemical reactions. Timothy BTW. Almost every single line of your message appears with the last word on a new line. Is there a way that you do something about your linewidth? P.S. Kyle, I'm sorry sending this message twice to you. From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 16 20:44 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1574" "Mon" "16" "June" "1997" "23:44:26" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "59" "Re: starship-design: Ideas, thoughts, and speculation" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA24524 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 20:44:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout03.mail.aol.com (emout03.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.94]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA24512 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 20:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout03.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA23565; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 23:44:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970616234234_-826385091@emout03.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1573 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: stk@sunherald.infi.net, owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Ideas, thoughts, and speculation Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 23:44:26 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/14/97 6:56:22 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net (kyle) wrote: >Greetings, everyone. > >I have some ideas that we might consider. > >CONVENTIONAL ideas: > >Slowing a sail-ship: How about using a magnetic loop to slow the ship. I >read >about that concept somewhere before. Isn't that to low powered to brake a ship down from 100,000 Kilometers per sec? >RAIR Ramscoops: Instead of using a physical scoop, use a magnetic scoop. >We >could use a laser to ionize the gass directly in front of the ship, and >then >magnetically shunt it into the drive assembly. The laser might also help >deflect >large objects. We were considering that in the early drafts. Problem is their doesn't seem to be enough in deap space to grab onto unless your intake if tens of thousands of miles across. (Filed the info on the web page I think?) >Laser ionization: Use a pulsed laser to ionize fuel for thrust. If you accelerate it for thrust. How do you burn it for power later? >EXOTIC ideas: Read at own risk! > >Wouldn't it be nice if we could use just energy as fuel? Sure, if it >works. > >Gravity/Antigravity generation: I have some ideas, but I don't know >about it. > >Tachyon propulsion: Great! How is it done? And I hate time travel! > >Magnetic Warping of space: Hmmmm... > >Alcubierre warp drive: Good, neat, but unfortunately they don't sell >exotic >matter at the local 7-11. > >As always, TAKE THESE IDEAS WITH A GRAIN OF SALT! > > Kyle R. Mcallister Lots of fun stuff in theoretical physics. But its so hard to get a parts catalog! ;) Kelly From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 17 12:44 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["11530" "Tue" "17" "June" "1997" "13:43:51" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "182" "starship-design: Drive ideas, Re: My last message" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA21949 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 12:44:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA21892 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 12:44:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp8.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp8.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.80]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA29654 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 15:43:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33A6F706.A8F@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------28D56B7CA68" Content-Length: 11529 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Drive ideas, Re: My last message Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 13:43:51 -0700 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------28D56B7CA68 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To starship design/Timothy Van Der Linden: When I specified the drive radius away from the ship, I meant inner radius. It is necessary to isolate the reaction device from the rest of the ship due to the tidal disruption effects produced by warping space. Drive segment A would be positioned 1.25 (at least) radii in front of the ship. It may be necessary for A to be more massive than B segment which will be behind the ship. B segment will incorporate the ZPEF generators to negatively warp space directly to the rear of the ship in an arclike fashion. The Superconducting plates may need to be shaped similarly. The diagram below shows my theory: "A" + - "B" + - + - + - +========(SHIP)========- / Direction of travel + - /_______________________ + - \ + - \ + - Now all we have to do is figure out how to work ZPE correctly. Any ideas on how to get negative mass? Kyle Mcallister --------------28D56B7CA68 Content-Type: image/gif; name="WARP.GIF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline; filename="WARP.GIF" R0lGODlhDgJcAfAAAAAAAP///yH+MCBJbWFnZSBnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgR2hvc3RzY3JpcHQg KGRldmljZT1wcG1yYXcpCgAsAAAAAA4CXAEAAv6Mj6nL7Q+jnLTai7PevCeQgd5IluaJpurK tu4LK2IY1/aN5/rO9/isAfqGxKLxyAEokUil8/m8CANQYBUxZWq33G5sSc16bdaylAGWocfs tvtNMcNrckN6csdmxdS5/w+4VRe4MpgXwXfIF0bY6PgIM3MIOWK4uDBpJ3TZR+n5CQoRZXeQ SWlqkTkatplohcgZKjvrJ/LKKAsmGbSoW4rlkBaLS1tsXPubjIpW1TzckmfLGxwN3KA7vHy8 zT10+/s8N7UULtO7qUfdl13e7f7+Nd6e4tycKj+ffn1ObRurDS+gQGj4QCkCqG5fQmb6Fg58 CJGgOYNi8jXExE+hNf6HETt6rNQKQ70rOyY52YBqWcZSlxB+fAmT4cZPJl3KvInzgzyOMXv6 xGkTjiJiIlfmvJhszc+lTC9abHNH0tOULV1hPNo0K0woxrgilUBSzypMGMeG1aQ1rdq1HYIG Yws3rtwHT7/OvYs3bV1Sefv6bbp379/BhENNLYw4seLFjBs7fgw5suTJlCtbvow5s+bNnDt7 /gw6tOjRpEubPo06terVrFu7fg07tuzZtGvbvo07t+7dvHv7/g08uPDhxIsbP448ufLlzJs7 fw49uvTp1Ktbv449u/bt3Lt7/w4+vPjx5MubP48+vfr17Nu7fw8/vvz59Ovbv48/v/79/P77 +/8/DYAC0oXNgAZOxNKBCg6loIF7NDigSRAKKOGE/x1koX81ZdjfSXZxaJ9ZIHaoiYcj6ufW ieL9I5iK2QGUoovdkUOgjO7RWJWN7O3SSUwx6qgVjz6iA2Rf37xkIlFFytWiJ8KQA4JZTS7J zZSnjHKSP1HSSGWQQ7KS5TpRouVPlz9Z+UgUZa4pJplompnmkFxuCc46nazyJpx/5NkIV1uO aScjr3il50B8BgKlNHMCKg1fdBYq0KGI/jlmpYI6qoyYSULa1Vb2hElnmXeKKiqnxUgKiJp+ Vqpoo8I4iqqpRMRaS6KhsvloqbtQ+qOsXNAq1K1qBspqnaTemf6gr3F6aiuUbbJpp66NKqls qsziuOql2mr7ZKalViuUp7h8ykqPgI4baI/EnguuG8C+sSq5HrqKVrRJpftou1BdWwaoOGKK 7rlR7aquvl28626+YIJKLKzJfquuLwgbLJKc2Mi77qgPk3KkuZtSPKu4YS78b6sca4ysIdb0 CjI9Is+7sKYm28sXzfXePEjLOkwMlbMcZ/lntIqaWyfRUiVbs847+8jtz0BbCjXA9RJ8Mr48 Kz2TR862esXIrn6N9NBVC1ww1pHIWe6aW6OLsrRFpwywlle3PLcXT7cdqs253mx0pvgaXbe+ gR9897oMk923kEQx2vfJLJuNSE/Yiv4db5vIOn5vVB47pTjkJuQzUuiij0566aZbrmmJQLNN 8NF8E1PNTKbPTnvttt+Oe+66785774TCS4PsWXd8JJFJR/yB8GLlfbnqk4Pj+rch3VvwwMQn n/nw2mev/PHGV989+NQXj7334Yuf9PXjn08+++W7G4Lv8s8/7MxOF2u/L4urMf6gLNEPwAAK cIAELGDuxFEUAyqQdA3rVv0Y1y24vc4SwNjVAi+IwQxqcIO/Y4NFvgfC7ZlvfdwrYfrAlDac 4WpOsGsd0tLnv7hB733IM2ENbdg+HIrwhug7IQlHCMQeqs+HOvyhEHc4uOBJgYNMvBQEyaQ3 xOktYlS7XP4VecXELGpxi1y0B/zi10UDPquBxrKiFBmXLtgRrXnsalYY3wjHOAbwixUrYhBD aEQ83hGFQaOZVLwGxZqhcVqDFCQVyzetI+bxfXokoiLtyMNINnKSjKyk+8JHyUse72BglOMc +2ipmPnsWC2U4dikxq7q/dGTrGylK0W3LyU+0pGNlKQl7+gvbnWOUqaM4N8aVrUJxjBJmYRk LYdoy0VqcpY8PCYSb0lLaCYziL/ixSvnB8xXVRBmZgzbGsWWRvDxiFXXLKc5PenBTp5zd9l8 oRcJuT9vSnCCyRPSk9aJz3xu0G5BeOYynalMHHbNiu7kZdt+yTeB5UxzzaNiMf4dOU1m5nCP /4QmQKmJzIzuMKLNpCETpqJPdiL0VdDamxT357r12fOQ/wupS1+KTU4mEKa0k6DE3gYzB7pT Jy+MZyI1Z0GaCnWos5NpHSkKyYgiU6n10+UpxRdK/TF0p06Rmg+/Rkx/BhSiE/2eRLX6VSMq daMarehWP2pNosKSnBuj1/8CKdU1um+l02tc2tSK17wmURT93OpFe9hRsIpSS6c847gQB87Y JdSq0VAcUB0rzb8+lKNlNaFXK8tVwS51opTNmhFAqteRHHZoiYXV3hoHMV8SVHuJZGloXwtT QaQVtqoqlh9jOCq3trMOhr1sMHEmKNoKd51olWVnk/6K2Vm24m5kY5TKskm5YLoVnnXdXAUN OdXMmtWyNEzuZjULXrF6N7wY9aw3ZjvcoA1yl4iUWEoLudqFyhWq1kuvfVlZ3KMCdrxnlaxO VgfdzKFjoL6E799829DshoRLyCVvWI1J1gj3V8JI3S+FHxwydd63nWrs6T1v25Dmvm2xvz0p UEl23xRn8Qig3TDUdDswpOBPwCOO8XVhuLI2sk5YsNyudsvr1/+qWIEs7it3l4lhBOPycNt6 L0uNZWIKbu+nxftGG01EvNB2N7IOHiuS+ZtUHtRlyClksJOraFqH0Xh4t2itNi27YAb62Mvi Xd6Q31iEw3z5wv7VbLaYZ/7dA2NvvRceqTi9p7+dYlGVPaazaQ9Y5zl/d8KRBnKFmSlm9Nq3 zAeFMaOxbDU2rwzHoybSpk6LRS9yz3fIvfMrz6th4QrNtgHrJSNJi1PcojmeSnquoH/nJwcr ObeqPu6qXS3SHuiZ0keudJKFfCvU3TS+nHuqiE1JT8eST9vLC+6VE/1jITqD2SgeHbkdbWFy DxvdS4v1cIMr7SdKt6qkpBddt5xgtjmsutjysPOwedG1shbZMc20kTH87C5nuanHkreh26zG 6WKXp0nRcYllXGszvznhzl5uKkFYbDBfetKWTvfIPXqDMbvYXtSdJ0N/+rMQ27XX81Xwwgl5 Mf7miUjSWxatSsetUYLbzuDulvW0Xbg4iLv2yUnHN4NLhOine6yuzv3vySMNbOVlXXaNFrfQ P0YHlHDZ2YElO2ezxWHVnviEZ5HyW0mtDMXiScgxX1SOQc1sQulx7hsh17EFvueOj13d+A7W nVMXt5Sqsu+DYu+UEc11yMas4jodWQ31XnivDHtYbAb31Nve0q+fhY4lJ3m4133zkk0NuKKm PIKa/vaZI5TYAz91PTR2vdqZPM0kHMvnpb5KcP+V46Uv/O73WvT0jg1scB9hKsk47wSb2uIt 3S83/632wYeb0VzdOApvSJK9ExyBhT678Y396dtnTPL0vPE4mrbacP7iHepAHDfjw2/562+f 5FmlPMhv7XmpFn7nZ358Znybh3KEA1vdxlZTlFDy1Vq5hVNMh3v1dGqdFxb9AnT012DipX/L 5Xwf933+l0NfFy6BV3wGSFYbCEojhWaNRT2BBnuxp4ECtnW9Z3+hZ2P7J0IXuGZR1z/9E4D2 h3rlp4Ln1jFjIGskM1qYI0hXhGkhR3H7Nmj9p4PqB3IMdFopWH2K9HTyxYFTZ4E+KHrw8m5/ FjDRY1ciGIQhRlIfN3//Nni8g33Z5YU+aIPHJk5UJnxThXlC+Fqkh3DDZ3pyI3AMgzK1xkZM h1v0B2PvN3kwJFKbdTo9GIfPtktWNmDA9/6B5mZ2R3h1ZPcrQvVDlUNoE0dtVPVbYxSGWFKF VsiDdVhU9zeEwOd0isVrNMeJrwht1reASkiARoiC6bZW0XVYtraIVlZ/4ndZclaEHQdpJQdM FQd+i9d8jqg67VVs6PeMHRhmWhCI5RY18RdX44SKqHRrDAhtOUhE51R+jgdz0pdjzReHmreO eZVOCieMQFY6ocdyZ2RvE3hxlIhzBFlTxxeMHuh3pWiH9ShXOqaMiod4wYeHoWiR6BdJghBS kmhuL/ZNBAWF8ihhWXWQP0Zc5iN8BxiRGFeOU5iNGviLCkiKFJko5eJUUVRV+ZZ5WNZBvuVS vgiDcDZ28UhvT/5Ie/6IYC/FT8M4iNrnUDn3QLR2U4q3dhnpcXVnZ7DYlPr4T56IYrfEhrpI jc0oFjSYQneXg90Yi964SSymVuK4NXmjU6GmaK6XkKI0hqJ3g/GHKfzGWGDYhvcDanhlVAgJ irv3e1gCdDM2lSQWmDJ4jXKgflwojaaHkcbjc/2iUuV1byX2R5zTZjuHhAdImhvllj/pccwV NaTCfBgFcSFElntIZqlHiT9IYhIHfyX1bY53heUkW1zpjfTDRybVlzIYm8XZd5zZO5/IlJYJ k/1omPJXTxMIhZ/pNIk5mReJgPt4mnh2XAS2gbtVc4D5VH5DjEslm++2Tf83ljLmdv4zaI3Z mH4/+VFE5SZReTHeMp4Y537TWWl62WiL2ZnYRnPc+WHyWYfa6JtN4JTDd5nrmDqVs36OGXHu +Zgm531e9aDNWWjJhIXBlm8DikvVVp486XtwuZaVyZ0Zxpxhpom6V253JTQVWErztlC8CY2h 06KUGZ3UxI2ixW1+8547uF5U+Zy4uKE7um7eEEdAiX/DWSA2mS8FtobKBYk2aI9oCaACWoAt Z6NFU1pgWnU0qZSfpU8QGi81aVJBGpAj1kxXSoX3uKV5lIGs1Z5f6nJOZpN76opg6UqfdZcq qpCV+JLwloYOmHYfqYrPB4KbVJGIqZaRyj+UBp14mW1Cav5rVKkPQbqnvalqzlmaMZiEYoZf 7PNO8zKO+UM1xiiSBBqZarClNaWjwjRqqRhlcfcwBvWV6+mOeRaoGgqqkaeYcXmWhRRBpeVp F9dQ5+io1Lii27mjPYqhmtdURYmnuRhKiXOh7Aitgip4s7KRzgN1gARKVSee1nan0VerwJqV sUqE1ad/8SlocOc2ichWvNKuveoDammVTvmUAyijOeVUXppYL/iXnnVS1gepCBuq3uqwSnZ7 IPqYO7h0q6dQatapEuuwCxutJWFOAMiahCWlHYaT3qR0vqaKyumuQEp3UvKrqzqWQXWfMvN+ Z7qvpCilEDRjx5inXOefHMWxcf53eM2KpXjisnyGdNhGXdaJov21YsoWqEF7kZ83riw0XVFF oRRoYt3Fr+w3tYQYtT6pe1eJl+RpYwUbcx+pTX0KPWMrTVKroT9AUzKjZqiqtsb5tn4Imy+b r0JXtMP6fUMKs01Xb2OaWlLoqWEEtcC5sUlptA2Xqg5ncwiriYhUehKqk0i2ldFahF4poIzI W7M3pTqbtm5EphpbNugZrDGYcs8aton7TvJZkylzNNJDotRialCFdWyIiETro2Druod5lFBk ZlXapsjjXmAKV2Tbr12WpG1JB3LUfZ/6ZiyUtrx2bbjrnwO2gjgKlyv7nDRLncqLvecYXe6F n/S5M/7hKrSf6TPdRK+oJa/TqKy2CVjfq54qG2Ozi5tXK0/9m7zvO4LHB0ftJlbPC7fmYEG/ 5DUraavzm6EQi5iL2KHAe8CgOos66G39i5wVG1cHJaOBizsQhcBLGg9DVZYqZFObeq1otIoZ Oqmle37YObTzeayIB5ICuXoD64RR1Sz8Y7Otez5SG4WRhX8FQqVOOK/TyKg+y7UV7JITbMG/ G7w+N0PONXfVCVwXK7KBG2B9y7mvO8Rz85ZdmLOM18EUW72pm5xwSsQ2TGY2nKuRmL2BhrXJ aznkJJe+d7qt9AMx3LViPKgKZaTWJriYmpPhpLUzvImiOMX3a5ngx445S/5YaoeZrbmmLPeP rTiZkZyEj0zG9tltrPgvoouAkHWykxqWVEyL+cTKvrur3KRzbidV1anHM+svjyrJBUwGMUzE gYxEIUdSYaOppLlSyCuqViXFlcSvJQzIsAujVGcynNeGBhaQqvfDIjzCjSvI0FsIKBya1tM9 F3u7PmWbNduxzahXJGyIM3SM6vXEiHrNPLbBcoOD+NTLwevI3RugZ8mnEqdrHnrOrwepXtl+ F2yan+yvfdyTI9jA0LJYuGaxT3SvuiSAn9rNbJzMguUCZcqQj4WVg5uKKKm5z3iijUqzKOyk jEi8nHxd51uBpIXFcRk7Kn02Gw3LbqzQBkrNLv79gOYJkFEskdXlizgdpwHoUarLsGOsoA1t llFaZmqcMT1cyymdzeLI1PrMzZGgZUeawnsU0NI5aEcEsUgqbn27kalZDcUrYlmsnxVqW+q1 aJm5zjcdxku91cJ6gfmnxlR3sNtbhcr5ykB40Dmd1HjNziDrZtR8tvc5zBhb1aSsxx8qmnk9 2HCq0y+wgEfaeHHaa2GtyDBcmwg9ZYYonDttQ9MqzCQql/LLep1GhUCqlUv6px192EbNrlpN w1l4Y/P02ev6zPxpv7m9SA0Z3IC4QFxrnblSu5aKc856dLNG1wWn0XeN2x2tZSvNb4m2yrOX i9Xt2YOtsBxUxBhIhv5YXEbLZ716ao4TStnAWsaF4MvAvM9Gvdujh6+KVpAuabaZ7b2ZTbkv fNyGjdYZzH30WJYlVaF2aY5250Z3JWfpnNAZHSvh6Lj994Wp3IP0Bd7fTdxUbLpilNVtW9O2 52957NCSbEhjdNFMGHXZLd+6Xd4SrqURiHe2x6mumrCLPOE93qng/eH4MKuuaXkRXb8lU8dq aNHXKS9DftnzTeED7s0goWIvzsd9GNgo7ZdZHrVYndMa1HNWLInbJENnJoczqHES6G2UrNZL qAJKrdsAHsZO3YqBpMMjyrD/nZclXpFYu9DKHbsYiJJeeq6TY7dttTmVLL6oit9QLuO19P7G JUDbedvlqAejVn7g8gqY3e3hChqMoGfVkyzny7iNTPuEtDyv+COZoUbRgEfa9S3ezRy3VC7K sExsjT7AYjiPuet1n27jjHzMfCeLJQmUhA23AM1H/fmGdTfZ7vrmJtjhl7iF6sqBm+hmnm7f 7JrhT4O4EUbnp87l5fxyxKuxPuzO8DxQBa58KPDhvyzl7o7Ypv3tsEjvx0nk117psSeYb+iJ 6ryXfMqS44tdik6S9pqG0Rajk57tGQ3vrOsBK5vtPR2haHzJcv6oow7kh5Smt+3iYsu7cAjc PUvu+b3C6BjqyF3Dko7Yy7yizTvnTl6DWPpzvxuv7R7kE42/C/556hKvmcOtb9fmNlxz4xRc kAYe7YzM8HB+wG0BvpXNkfj+MVueh1Ds4w6Fq9VOd0tGuYudnMaZtLjGd2ucmOatl5+T9Ej/ 6hvLsWK+87+e69On9gr/5ZwndcM76E3849NOfRPX4HQL2QOPvjrf8NZN+B2eBE0P83pNlAiq zjw9dKL6WBT74niuSSCfsh9crs+NSp2M+GB3cJYN+hgv9/qLuv/a3fZ8l4F+wZ6HN+I6eRW/ cJFnv6C7rgSff8Rs6FkK60e/8rLO8CjR+REOybnudZ1T/G5P2nz80oT81YMeghbH9TIXknls 6A/p5Mde5SRA3zTO/dJY0J7b1EVe3f6CL/rPjN+m3lhIHYaa7qZBucR4bNHhfNHLyfK2Pvr1 76PJF/xsb+kwbN7eTwDIzzB0m1cCbyozE0StxseoCNyc73I0K0u5EzorKo5F06u3Wd/53v+B QeFOVDTeUEnlirRkPjVN6TQKrV5tzg8WmZvhtN8sdTu2hpAYltrF9qi57ptKy1RxUpJcFHPx 1YaCoMwGuwqduBAJCa+OHCUCIyUnKSsthwzteMDIuiSXykpCLGSy+jwb796U6FxeSFxjYSIz zS5vcXN/HnkP6xRrOX2HU4OBf5GJdxOTQTaLk/4ynf3YFksM4aS0X59ksTNiVzZ1e4iZz6+b 0aE7p3vfyv7l5+nrv4yp1ojW1b10PPt0KEUGjglbabxVkQHujhB8Z/zZkzhRGjwj/dzlw8iO XSiND5VN29jRXLt0IEP9g3VqRJ5EdGCBQtNtT8aW+6pJPMnvmM2QKEW+s2iS40aPPjsKO7rT 51J9k0AmzSaM6D5qMSEBNAWT5sJsMz8B7cmUrFNGI41S3TKUGkW3b+F+bGYQbkWC1lqIneLK 5VkUdQEHFryMLc+5aoMe1ttUKeKxLy05ZoyyJB+VdAmGYVU0p8PHfhWHngxKMkTDSNdaHLya NT3RVRf/jPZH5Ti+XRvXFNWad+/BhVEnDv5aKvG0n0vD/sVa+W5M0c7ggSQIbf7s4qNND8fe fLtZ4NN9hxc/8TXovZW+2gtXa3x795GBVz9NtmjUmdrpm5eN/zp3/23fu02//uqbr8DtCBzw OER6CdDBByFsLZkIKawQl/hyM0647Pb7Tz7+lvLOugURVDAoTESUS8X87GsRuRdBTC7Fcxq0 0MYbccxRxx3dKmxG/37sL8gPOwRywwM5TNDFFZFUEsYkTYztxyGXZPHJ/x7hUcstuezSSx2H ijLGEas08konmRTTSg2vnFLGN8tUs0M3jySyyPvoyzLOMtFcc6/k+vRwTwPpJLROONNEdMxE pQTUzkIXteKILymt1NJLMSWvwUHZLI8qhRzlNFJBO/6F8lAy2zzV0DMfVZQoIUNNVShAMq3V 1ltxtXVTVBn1VNQ7VS0xWDNX7VVYWUt9Fc8mIfUTWGRNjaqIZpl1lUponb3W2Gp/1dbZQOU0 yVtiR+V2W3NppDXXddlt110IeXlX3nnprbcuPVkddlxq7URX2XwBLlfOfWPdlmBevx244GgN jMfehyGOWGJBJv3VX3CHbRJWi8NVmGN9P23142JHdQpUVy8WedqJWW7Z5YcvGvncjkGWmWGB ayY5YT491tnfcX9emFScQ86YZp+PntnopZFmWumGeyb66alvHrrqlN95WeutudZV6IObDvjq qMe22eqzwZZ6Z4TR/tpttv41TjpPudsW+1md016b6rrD3jvck6HOWe2zAeza8MMRt9DsvLFe /O2+y7abcbond3rwyiV/vLvEOe/cc/f81nxuy/kO3fHTIS9d78hTb/xy0Zv7XPbZaQdscNdZ z131uI/EfXfKYR+Q98xRf93s+mpPXvnldRl+b+d1x9x0nwFPXXrjiTcUT6CB55l077pfx3fu vw8+4+qxvz18jZZdBI9vSHnhtvGFpv945vHPX3+Kv+vf//8BGEABDpCABTTgAb9zj5d4wyuv yIsf5McNBE6QghW04AUxmEENbpCDHfRRIaSDm1bwIRwBkaAHUZhCFa6QhS104QsvKCA0wKQN NP7Jg0A6AEMd7pCHPfThD4H4P21wY4Q3XA9WZnHCIC6RiU104hOh6D8xzKEJquhKG2YRRS1u kYtd9OIPZfiXceihinqA4BfRmEY1rpGNQnQfVloyAlJksY11tOMd8ehFq4jwPPqIYx4BGUhB DvKFQ2wgCWEgv0YQkpGNdOQjA1gbMt7EjHLMISQxmUlNbvIiDayhHK+SGk6OkpSlvGM1+oLI EirRlK105SuhWBBxvO8qi4TlLXGZSx+yxISnYKUugRlMYXqwBTQIpSiHmUxlLnOCBbEMM6EZ TWk2c1bTtOY1sZlNbW6Tm9305jfBGU5xjpOc5TTnOdGZTnWuk53tdOPnO+EZT3nOk571tOc9 8ZlPfe6Tn/305z8BGlCBDpSgBTXoQRGaUIUulKENdehDIRpRiU6UohW16EUxmlGNbpSjHfXo R0EaUpGOlKQlNelJUZpSla6UpS116UthGlOZzpSmNbXpTXGaU53ulKecRGZPgQrGnwaVqDoc alGRysKjJrWc+6sMU6Hawl9GlaoYXGpVsXrAq2aVqwLcalfB2r+vhpWsZTXrWdGaVrWula1t des5L2PMt76VEXNt6xDtmldK6jWvl+SrXaf617POT7BqjV9h2XpIxA52FYsta1z9StACAAA7 --------------28D56B7CA68-- From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 17 16:53 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4059" "Wed" "18" "June" "1997" "01:52:55" "+0200" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "90" "starship-design: Re: More Specific about FTL/ZPE" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA09838 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA09823 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:53:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-08.svpop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0we83T-000FtLC; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 01:52:55 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 4058 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: More Specific about FTL/ZPE Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 01:52:55 +0200 (MET DST) Kyle replied: >>That "exotic matter" is just a terminology, what the writer (Miguel >>Alcubierre) probably means is that he doesn't want to speculate about how we >>might transform space-time. >>It is likely that the presence of energy/matter will do the transformation. >>My guess though is that the energy densities needed are far beyond what we >>like it too be. > >In his paper he said something about using "controlled zero-point quantum >fluctuation coherence". I _think_ he meant ZPE, but I don't know. Exotic >matter _according to his paper_ was matter that had negative gravitation. Yes, you and Lee are right about exotic meaning "negative gravitation", I had remembered it incorrectly. >>>The drive segments (probably 2, one in front, other in back) would be placed >>>as I said earlier at the very least 1.25 ship radii in front and back of the >>>starships non-drive portion. These estimates are the result of long study, >>>and "best-guess". >> >>Does this idea have a name, so that we might find more information about it? >>Or can you give us (me) more pointers? > >I can give you more information. I'll post it after I finish writing this. It >doesn't have an official name, just an idea I had after studying Alcubierre's >design, and studying ZPE. I've still little idea what the purpose of the coils is, and how they are positioned. >From what I've heard from you so far, I'm inclined to think that the experimental and theoretical data is too few to really discuss its properties and make estimates about what practical problems are associated with using DST. It is not that this group or I aren't interested in this, we simply are limited to only use science, that has enough data to discuss about in a way an engineer would. If you think I am mistaken here, and consider to have enough data for this group to do the above, then please correct me. N.B. You are in the unlucky situation that not all members of the group know as much about ZPE, FTL and DST as you do. Therefore you might need to supply more fundamentals than you are used to. I think it is save to assume that we know the basics of physics and math. Most of us have a few specialties beyond this. >>>ZPE is theoretically accomplished by placing two charged superconducting >>>plates within a nanometer of one another. >> >>When you say "accomplished", what do you mean with that word? >>From what I've read about this "Casimir effect", all that is shown, is that >>energy is present, but the same would be true for two electrical energy >>present between electrically charged plates. >>As result we can't use the Casimir effect to turn it into something useful. > >I mean the net attraction and negative energy density between the plates. >Maybe this could be used on the road to negative gravitation without having >to have negative matter. Maybe. Unfortunately here too we have too many unknowns, to use it effectively in this group. We would like to be able to get more or less real numbers, so that we can quantify the hurdles that have to be overcome. >>Quantum physics indeed tells us about virtual particles (particles with >>negative energy), they are at a lot of places where forces play a role. >>Even between two electrically charged plates there are virtual particles >>(photons). The trouble is that we cannot turn around the negative energy >>into positive energy. > >True. I wonder where that energy does come from. Any ideas? Remember that the net energy is equal to zero. But to answer your question: I assume the energy is borrowed from the energy stored in the charges on the plates. That is, a charge itself is an energy source, but remember we don't know how to tap/drain it. Timothy >>BTW. Almost every single line of your message appears with the last word on >>a new line. Is there a way that you do something about your linewidth? > >Yeah, I've noticed that. Tell me if this works alright. If not, I'll set >it narrower. Sorry about the inconvinience. It doesn't seem to make any difference. Maybe you should set it wider? From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 17 18:02 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3391" "Tue" "17" "June" "1997" "21:02:13" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "85" "Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA28264 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:02:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout03.mail.aol.com (emout03.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.94]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA28244 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:02:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout03.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id VAA13527; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 21:02:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970617210021_407517819@emout03.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3390 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: stk@sunherald.infi.net, owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 21:02:13 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/15/97 4:42:29 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net (kyle) wrote: >Steve VanDevender wrote: >> >> kyle writes: >> > I think that the problem with most scientists is that we would like >> > to think that we know everything about physics, and that there are >> > not an incredible amount of alternative posibilities and situations >> > which we have not yet begun to understand. We have only begun to >> > learn. Many a number of unexplored posibilities await us. We are just >> > beginning the journey. In my opinion, I think we should consider FTL >> > as possible in our mission. >> >> The starship-design exercise is to design a starship and interstellar >> exploration mission that can be reasonably expected to be buildable in >> 2050. That means we are being intentionally conservative about the >> technology used. While we sometimes extrapolate technological trends in >> making assumptions about the materials and techniques that will be >> available, for the most part nobody has tried to postulate technology >> that violates _currently known_ laws of physics, because that's all we >> have to work with now. > >FTL doesn't necessarily violate physics. Or consider these: distance >modification; >The ability to make sublight journeys to stars by quantum jumping; That >has >been done in laboratories. Any particle physist will tell you that. >You'd be >surprised at how many scientists have postulated "technology that >violates >currently known laws of physics". As I said earlier, physics is almost >entirely >an unknown for us. We haven't begun to unlock its secrets. Maybe FTL >doesn't >violate physics. There have been scattered reports of slight FTL >transversal. >(E-mail me if interested). I know most of you say that these reports are >just >junk science, but thats exactly what was said to the Wright brothers. > > >> The biggest problem with trying to design an FTL starship today is that >> no one, not even the most expert physicist, has the slightest idea how >> FTL could be realistically accomplished in a manner that would allow it >> to be used in a starship drive system. > >Not necesarily true. > >>If you don't know the size and >> requirements of the drive system, how can you design a ship around it? > >Hmmm...Aha! Estimate! (we've done plenty of it) > >> On the other hand, while the requirements of a relativistic drive system >> are difficult, they are not physically impossible, and it might be >> possible to build one in 2050. > >FTL may not be impossible. > >My conclusion: I still stick by FTL as being a good propulsion system to >use on our ship. (whichever one we build) Giant sail ships wouldn't >work with it though- distortion would be so large, it would require >ENORMOUS >energy to create and maintain it without risking ship's integrity. Sail >ships are dangerous even if used for sublight travel: One stray meteor >shower and there went your mission, your crew, and several hundred >billion >dollars. My design does incorporate FTL travel. Similar to Alcubierres >warp >drive, but more...2050ish. > >Kyle Mcallister Ok, I'll bite. What is the weighe, volume, power requirements, structural loads, etc.. Of your FTL drive. Prove your numbers. I agree that FTL is likely to be possible. But we have no idea how, or what kind of equipment it would need. So we can't design a ship around it. Kelly From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 17 18:57 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3164" "Tue" "17" "June" "1997" "19:57:05" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "63" "starship-design: FTL Drive designs" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA10888 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:57:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA10874 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:57:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp19.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp19.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.91]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA08989; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 21:57:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33A74E80.7A15@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 3163 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: kellySt@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: FTL Drive designs Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 19:57:05 -0700 In reply to Kelly Starks' message: My estimates and ideas are sketchy, but at least they're something to go on. Power requirements: When you speak of this, I assume you mean just for the drive, but I'll include this note: Remember, you have to accelerate away from a massive body to start the drive. That means leaving the solar system under sublight engines. I don't have exact numbers, but an energy density of in excess of 10^28 w/cm would be required to maintain the negative gravitation on the rear stator. We can't begin to produce this energy, but I think it safe to say that 10^23 watts could be boosted via means (those means have been proven, even though we don't know why they work) to this amount. To reach this energy level, and to charge the massive area, I propose using controlled zero-point-fluctuation energy. To the direct rear of the ship 2 plates of superconducting metal would be placed, to be charged with the energy needed to cause negative warping of space, and accomplish FTL. Negative gravitation produced by the rear plates would be coupled with positive gravitation caused by a large, shaped mass at the front of the ship in the manner demonstrated by the GIF diagram I have included. The energy input necessary would most probably be similar to the output of your Explorer-class designs fusion reactors. It would then be simple to accelerate to the destination, rotate retrograde at the halfway point and slow below lightspeed before entering the Tau Ceti system. Depending on how much acceleration you apply, you will arrive in much less time than is possible with conventional travel. The drive itself would be two 180 degree arcs placed at either end of the ship, one being the positive gravity supply (just by being there) and the double plate at the other end that generates negative gravity by ZPE fluctuations. The weight of the drives would depend on the size of the ship and material used for their construction, but they could be very large since they would be outside the ship's main systems. The drive segments would be placed at least 1.25 ship radii away from the exact center of the main ship, and would be the same size in diameter (Remember, they're arc shaped). As far as the sublight engines to accelerate, well you'll figure out something on where to place them. But for heavens sake, not near the ZPE plates! Tidal disruptions would tear them apart. Acceleration would (until we've mastered positive gravity generation) depend on a combination of factors: The naturalgravitation caused by the mass of the front segment (the heavier, the more graity etc.), and the amount of negative gravitation produced by the rear segment (the more power, the more negative gravitation, etc.). But whose to say that if we can make antigravity, that we can't make regular gravity? That would save bulk. I have various other theories on FTL travel, some including warping space by magnetic fields. This is just a theory, so it might work and it might not, but I think we can at least estimate on FTL drives for use in our starship. If you would like to know about my other ideas, let me know. Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 17 18:59 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["10474" "Tue" "17" "June" "1997" "19:59:37" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "155" "starship-design: Warping of space" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA11360 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:59:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA11345 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp19.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp19.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.91]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA09642; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 21:59:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33A74F19.155A@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------620B48827FAC" Content-Length: 10473 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, kellySt@aol.com Subject: starship-design: Warping of space Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 19:59:37 -0700 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------620B48827FAC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is the diagram I spoke of in my message "FTL drive designs": --------------620B48827FAC Content-Type: image/gif; name="WARP.GIF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline; filename="WARP.GIF" R0lGODlhDgJcAfAAAAAAAP///yH+MCBJbWFnZSBnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgR2hvc3RzY3JpcHQg KGRldmljZT1wcG1yYXcpCgAsAAAAAA4CXAEAAv6Mj6nL7Q+jnLTai7PevCeQgd5IluaJpurK tu4LK2IY1/aN5/rO9/isAfqGxKLxyAEokUil8/m8CANQYBUxZWq33G5sSc16bdaylAGWocfs tvtNMcNrckN6csdmxdS5/w+4VRe4MpgXwXfIF0bY6PgIM3MIOWK4uDBpJ3TZR+n5CQoRZXeQ SWlqkTkatplohcgZKjvrJ/LKKAsmGbSoW4rlkBaLS1tsXPubjIpW1TzckmfLGxwN3KA7vHy8 zT10+/s8N7UULtO7qUfdl13e7f7+Nd6e4tycKj+ffn1ObRurDS+gQGj4QCkCqG5fQmb6Fg58 CJGgOYNi8jXExE+hNf6HETt6rNQKQ70rOyY52YBqWcZSlxB+fAmT4cZPJl3KvInzgzyOMXv6 xGkTjiJiIlfmvJhszc+lTC9abHNH0tOULV1hPNo0K0woxrgilUBSzypMGMeG1aQ1rdq1HYIG Yws3rtwHT7/OvYs3bV1Sefv6bbp379/BhENNLYw4seLFjBs7fgw5suTJlCtbvow5s+bNnDt7 /gw6tOjRpEubPo06terVrFu7fg07tuzZtGvbvo07t+7dvHv7/g08uPDhxIsbP448ufLlzJs7 fw49uvTp1Ktbv449u/bt3Lt7/w4+vPjx5MubP48+vfr17Nu7fw8/vvz59Ovbv48/v/79/P77 +/8/DYAC0oXNgAZOxNKBCg6loIF7NDigSRAKKOGE/x1koX81ZdjfSXZxaJ9ZIHaoiYcj6ufW ieL9I5iK2QGUoovdkUOgjO7RWJWN7O3SSUwx6qgVjz6iA2Rf37xkIlFFytWiJ8KQA4JZTS7J zZSnjHKSP1HSSGWQQ7KS5TpRouVPlz9Z+UgUZa4pJplompnmkFxuCc46nazyJpx/5NkIV1uO aScjr3il50B8BgKlNHMCKg1fdBYq0KGI/jlmpYI6qoyYSULa1Vb2hElnmXeKKiqnxUgKiJp+ Vqpoo8I4iqqpRMRaS6KhsvloqbtQ+qOsXNAq1K1qBspqnaTemf6gr3F6aiuUbbJpp66NKqls qsziuOql2mr7ZKalViuUp7h8ykqPgI4baI/EnguuG8C+sSq5HrqKVrRJpftou1BdWwaoOGKK 7rlR7aquvl28626+YIJKLKzJfquuLwgbLJKc2Mi77qgPk3KkuZtSPKu4YS78b6sca4ysIdb0 CjI9Is+7sKYm28sXzfXePEjLOkwMlbMcZ/lntIqaWyfRUiVbs847+8jtz0BbCjXA9RJ8Mr48 Kz2TR862esXIrn6N9NBVC1ww1pHIWe6aW6OLsrRFpwywlle3PLcXT7cdqs253mx0pvgaXbe+ gR9897oMk923kEQx2vfJLJuNSE/Yiv4db5vIOn5vVB47pTjkJuQzUuiij0566aZbrmmJQLNN 8NF8E1PNTKbPTnvttt+Oe+66785774TCS4PsWXd8JJFJR/yB8GLlfbnqk4Pj+rch3VvwwMQn n/nw2mev/PHGV989+NQXj7334Yuf9PXjn08+++W7G4Lv8s8/7MxOF2u/L4urMf6gLNEPwAAK cIAELGDuxFEUAyqQdA3rVv0Y1y24vc4SwNjVAi+IwQxqcIO/Y4NFvgfC7ZlvfdwrYfrAlDac 4WpOsGsd0tLnv7hB733IM2ENbdg+HIrwhug7IQlHCMQeqs+HOvyhEHc4uOBJgYNMvBQEyaQ3 xOktYlS7XP4VecXELGpxi1y0B/zi10UDPquBxrKiFBmXLtgRrXnsalYY3wjHOAbwixUrYhBD aEQ83hGFQaOZVLwGxZqhcVqDFCQVyzetI+bxfXokoiLtyMNINnKSjKyk+8JHyUse72BglOMc +2ipmPnsWC2U4dikxq7q/dGTrGylK0W3LyU+0pGNlKQl7+gvbnWOUqaM4N8aVrUJxjBJmYRk LYdoy0VqcpY8PCYSb0lLaCYziL/ixSvnB8xXVRBmZgzbGsWWRvDxiFXXLKc5PenBTp5zd9l8 oRcJuT9vSnCCyRPSk9aJz3xu0G5BeOYynalMHHbNiu7kZdt+yTeB5UxzzaNiMf4dOU1m5nCP /4QmQKmJzIzuMKLNpCETpqJPdiL0VdDamxT357r12fOQ/wupS1+KTU4mEKa0k6DE3gYzB7pT Jy+MZyI1Z0GaCnWos5NpHSkKyYgiU6n10+UpxRdK/TF0p06Rmg+/Rkx/BhSiE/2eRLX6VSMq daMarehWP2pNosKSnBuj1/8CKdU1um+l02tc2tSK17wmURT93OpFe9hRsIpSS6c847gQB87Y JdSq0VAcUB0rzb8+lKNlNaFXK8tVwS51opTNmhFAqteRHHZoiYXV3hoHMV8SVHuJZGloXwtT QaQVtqoqlh9jOCq3trMOhr1sMHEmKNoKd51olWVnk/6K2Vm24m5kY5TKskm5YLoVnnXdXAUN OdXMmtWyNEzuZjULXrF6N7wY9aw3ZjvcoA1yl4iUWEoLudqFyhWq1kuvfVlZ3KMCdrxnlaxO VgfdzKFjoL6E799829DshoRLyCVvWI1J1gj3V8JI3S+FHxwydd63nWrs6T1v25Dmvm2xvz0p UEl23xRn8Qig3TDUdDswpOBPwCOO8XVhuLI2sk5YsNyudsvr1/+qWIEs7it3l4lhBOPycNt6 L0uNZWIKbu+nxftGG01EvNB2N7IOHiuS+ZtUHtRlyClksJOraFqH0Xh4t2itNi27YAb62Mvi Xd6Q31iEw3z5wv7VbLaYZ/7dA2NvvRceqTi9p7+dYlGVPaazaQ9Y5zl/d8KRBnKFmSlm9Nq3 zAeFMaOxbDU2rwzHoybSpk6LRS9yz3fIvfMrz6th4QrNtgHrJSNJi1PcojmeSnquoH/nJwcr ObeqPu6qXS3SHuiZ0keudJKFfCvU3TS+nHuqiE1JT8eST9vLC+6VE/1jITqD2SgeHbkdbWFy DxvdS4v1cIMr7SdKt6qkpBddt5xgtjmsutjysPOwedG1shbZMc20kTH87C5nuanHkreh26zG 6WKXp0nRcYllXGszvznhzl5uKkFYbDBfetKWTvfIPXqDMbvYXtSdJ0N/+rMQ27XX81Xwwgl5 Mf7miUjSWxatSsetUYLbzuDulvW0Xbg4iLv2yUnHN4NLhOine6yuzv3vySMNbOVlXXaNFrfQ P0YHlHDZ2YElO2ezxWHVnviEZ5HyW0mtDMXiScgxX1SOQc1sQulx7hsh17EFvueOj13d+A7W nVMXt5Sqsu+DYu+UEc11yMas4jodWQ31XnivDHtYbAb31Nve0q+fhY4lJ3m4133zkk0NuKKm PIKa/vaZI5TYAz91PTR2vdqZPM0kHMvnpb5KcP+V46Uv/O73WvT0jg1scB9hKsk47wSb2uIt 3S83/632wYeb0VzdOApvSJK9ExyBhT678Y396dtnTPL0vPE4mrbacP7iHepAHDfjw2/562+f 5FmlPMhv7XmpFn7nZ358Znybh3KEA1vdxlZTlFDy1Vq5hVNMh3v1dGqdFxb9AnT012DipX/L 5Xwf933+l0NfFy6BV3wGSFYbCEojhWaNRT2BBnuxp4ECtnW9Z3+hZ2P7J0IXuGZR1z/9E4D2 h3rlp4Ln1jFjIGskM1qYI0hXhGkhR3H7Nmj9p4PqB3IMdFopWH2K9HTyxYFTZ4E+KHrw8m5/ FjDRY1ciGIQhRlIfN3//Nni8g33Z5YU+aIPHJk5UJnxThXlC+Fqkh3DDZ3pyI3AMgzK1xkZM h1v0B2PvN3kwJFKbdTo9GIfPtktWNmDA9/6B5mZ2R3h1ZPcrQvVDlUNoE0dtVPVbYxSGWFKF VsiDdVhU9zeEwOd0isVrNMeJrwht1reASkiARoiC6bZW0XVYtraIVlZ/4ndZclaEHQdpJQdM FQd+i9d8jqg67VVs6PeMHRhmWhCI5RY18RdX44SKqHRrDAhtOUhE51R+jgdz0pdjzReHmreO eZVOCieMQFY6ocdyZ2RvE3hxlIhzBFlTxxeMHuh3pWiH9ShXOqaMiod4wYeHoWiR6BdJghBS kmhuL/ZNBAWF8ihhWXWQP0Zc5iN8BxiRGFeOU5iNGviLCkiKFJko5eJUUVRV+ZZ5WNZBvuVS vgiDcDZ28UhvT/5Ie/6IYC/FT8M4iNrnUDn3QLR2U4q3dhnpcXVnZ7DYlPr4T56IYrfEhrpI jc0oFjSYQneXg90Yi964SSymVuK4NXmjU6GmaK6XkKI0hqJ3g/GHKfzGWGDYhvcDanhlVAgJ irv3e1gCdDM2lSQWmDJ4jXKgflwojaaHkcbjc/2iUuV1byX2R5zTZjuHhAdImhvllj/pccwV NaTCfBgFcSFElntIZqlHiT9IYhIHfyX1bY53heUkW1zpjfTDRybVlzIYm8XZd5zZO5/IlJYJ k/1omPJXTxMIhZ/pNIk5mReJgPt4mnh2XAS2gbtVc4D5VH5DjEslm++2Tf83ljLmdv4zaI3Z mH4/+VFE5SZReTHeMp4Y537TWWl62WiL2ZnYRnPc+WHyWYfa6JtN4JTDd5nrmDqVs36OGXHu +Zgm531e9aDNWWjJhIXBlm8DikvVVp486XtwuZaVyZ0Zxpxhpom6V253JTQVWErztlC8CY2h 06KUGZ3UxI2ixW1+8547uF5U+Zy4uKE7um7eEEdAiX/DWSA2mS8FtobKBYk2aI9oCaACWoAt Z6NFU1pgWnU0qZSfpU8QGi81aVJBGpAj1kxXSoX3uKV5lIGs1Z5f6nJOZpN76opg6UqfdZcq qpCV+JLwloYOmHYfqYrPB4KbVJGIqZaRyj+UBp14mW1Cav5rVKkPQbqnvalqzlmaMZiEYoZf 7PNO8zKO+UM1xiiSBBqZarClNaWjwjRqqRhlcfcwBvWV6+mOeRaoGgqqkaeYcXmWhRRBpeVp F9dQ5+io1Lii27mjPYqhmtdURYmnuRhKiXOh7Aitgip4s7KRzgN1gARKVSee1nan0VerwJqV sUqE1ad/8SlocOc2ichWvNKuveoDammVTvmUAyijOeVUXppYL/iXnnVS1gepCBuq3uqwSnZ7 IPqYO7h0q6dQatapEuuwCxutJWFOAMiahCWlHYaT3qR0vqaKyumuQEp3UvKrqzqWQXWfMvN+ Z7qvpCilEDRjx5inXOefHMWxcf53eM2KpXjisnyGdNhGXdaJov21YsoWqEF7kZ83riw0XVFF oRRoYt3Fr+w3tYQYtT6pe1eJl+RpYwUbcx+pTX0KPWMrTVKroT9AUzKjZqiqtsb5tn4Imy+b r0JXtMP6fUMKs01Xb2OaWlLoqWEEtcC5sUlptA2Xqg5ncwiriYhUehKqk0i2ldFahF4poIzI W7M3pTqbtm5EphpbNugZrDGYcs8aton7TvJZkylzNNJDotRialCFdWyIiETro2Druod5lFBk ZlXapsjjXmAKV2Tbr12WpG1JB3LUfZ/6ZiyUtrx2bbjrnwO2gjgKlyv7nDRLncqLvecYXe6F n/S5M/7hKrSf6TPdRK+oJa/TqKy2CVjfq54qG2Ozi5tXK0/9m7zvO4LHB0ftJlbPC7fmYEG/ 5DUraavzm6EQi5iL2KHAe8CgOos66G39i5wVG1cHJaOBizsQhcBLGg9DVZYqZFObeq1otIoZ Oqmle37YObTzeayIB5ICuXoD64RR1Sz8Y7Otez5SG4WRhX8FQqVOOK/TyKg+y7UV7JITbMG/ G7w+N0PONXfVCVwXK7KBG2B9y7mvO8Rz85ZdmLOM18EUW72pm5xwSsQ2TGY2nKuRmL2BhrXJ aznkJJe+d7qt9AMx3LViPKgKZaTWJriYmpPhpLUzvImiOMX3a5ngx445S/5YaoeZrbmmLPeP rTiZkZyEj0zG9tltrPgvoouAkHWykxqWVEyL+cTKvrur3KRzbidV1anHM+svjyrJBUwGMUzE gYxEIUdSYaOppLlSyCuqViXFlcSvJQzIsAujVGcynNeGBhaQqvfDIjzCjSvI0FsIKBya1tM9 F3u7PmWbNduxzahXJGyIM3SM6vXEiHrNPLbBcoOD+NTLwevI3RugZ8mnEqdrHnrOrwepXtl+ F2yan+yvfdyTI9jA0LJYuGaxT3SvuiSAn9rNbJzMguUCZcqQj4WVg5uKKKm5z3iijUqzKOyk jEi8nHxd51uBpIXFcRk7Kn02Gw3LbqzQBkrNLv79gOYJkFEskdXlizgdpwHoUarLsGOsoA1t llFaZmqcMT1cyymdzeLI1PrMzZGgZUeawnsU0NI5aEcEsUgqbn27kalZDcUrYlmsnxVqW+q1 aJm5zjcdxku91cJ6gfmnxlR3sNtbhcr5ykB40Dmd1HjNziDrZtR8tvc5zBhb1aSsxx8qmnk9 2HCq0y+wgEfaeHHaa2GtyDBcmwg9ZYYonDttQ9MqzCQql/LLep1GhUCqlUv6px192EbNrlpN w1l4Y/P02ev6zPxpv7m9SA0Z3IC4QFxrnblSu5aKc856dLNG1wWn0XeN2x2tZSvNb4m2yrOX i9Xt2YOtsBxUxBhIhv5YXEbLZ716ao4TStnAWsaF4MvAvM9Gvdujh6+KVpAuabaZ7b2ZTbkv fNyGjdYZzH30WJYlVaF2aY5250Z3JWfpnNAZHSvh6Lj994Wp3IP0Bd7fTdxUbLpilNVtW9O2 52957NCSbEhjdNFMGHXZLd+6Xd4SrqURiHe2x6mumrCLPOE93qng/eH4MKuuaXkRXb8lU8dq aNHXKS9DftnzTeED7s0goWIvzsd9GNgo7ZdZHrVYndMa1HNWLInbJENnJoczqHES6G2UrNZL qAJKrdsAHsZO3YqBpMMjyrD/nZclXpFYu9DKHbsYiJJeeq6TY7dttTmVLL6oit9QLuO19P7G JUDbedvlqAejVn7g8gqY3e3hChqMoGfVkyzny7iNTPuEtDyv+COZoUbRgEfa9S3ezRy3VC7K sExsjT7AYjiPuet1n27jjHzMfCeLJQmUhA23AM1H/fmGdTfZ7vrmJtjhl7iF6sqBm+hmnm7f 7JrhT4O4EUbnp87l5fxyxKuxPuzO8DxQBa58KPDhvyzl7o7Ypv3tsEjvx0nk117psSeYb+iJ 6ryXfMqS44tdik6S9pqG0Rajk57tGQ3vrOsBK5vtPR2haHzJcv6oow7kh5Smt+3iYsu7cAjc PUvu+b3C6BjqyF3Dko7Yy7yizTvnTl6DWPpzvxuv7R7kE42/C/556hKvmcOtb9fmNlxz4xRc kAYe7YzM8HB+wG0BvpXNkfj+MVueh1Ds4w6Fq9VOd0tGuYudnMaZtLjGd2ucmOatl5+T9Ej/ 6hvLsWK+87+e69On9gr/5ZwndcM76E3849NOfRPX4HQL2QOPvjrf8NZN+B2eBE0P83pNlAiq zjw9dKL6WBT74niuSSCfsh9crs+NSp2M+GB3cJYN+hgv9/qLuv/a3fZ8l4F+wZ6HN+I6eRW/ cJFnv6C7rgSff8Rs6FkK60e/8rLO8CjR+REOybnudZ1T/G5P2nz80oT81YMeghbH9TIXknls 6A/p5Mde5SRA3zTO/dJY0J7b1EVe3f6CL/rPjN+m3lhIHYaa7qZBucR4bNHhfNHLyfK2Pvr1 76PJF/xsb+kwbN7eTwDIzzB0m1cCbyozE0StxseoCNyc73I0K0u5EzorKo5F06u3Wd/53v+B QeFOVDTeUEnlirRkPjVN6TQKrV5tzg8WmZvhtN8sdTu2hpAYltrF9qi57ptKy1RxUpJcFHPx 1YaCoMwGuwqduBAJCa+OHCUCIyUnKSsthwzteMDIuiSXykpCLGSy+jwb796U6FxeSFxjYSIz zS5vcXN/HnkP6xRrOX2HU4OBf5GJdxOTQTaLk/4ynf3YFksM4aS0X59ksTNiVzZ1e4iZz6+b 0aE7p3vfyv7l5+nrv4yp1ojW1b10PPt0KEUGjglbabxVkQHujhB8Z/zZkzhRGjwj/dzlw8iO XSiND5VN29jRXLt0IEP9g3VqRJ5EdGCBQtNtT8aW+6pJPMnvmM2QKEW+s2iS40aPPjsKO7rT 51J9k0AmzSaM6D5qMSEBNAWT5sJsMz8B7cmUrFNGI41S3TKUGkW3b+F+bGYQbkWC1lqIneLK 5VkUdQEHFryMLc+5aoMe1ttUKeKxLy05ZoyyJB+VdAmGYVU0p8PHfhWHngxKMkTDSNdaHLya NT3RVRf/jPZH5Ti+XRvXFNWad+/BhVEnDv5aKvG0n0vD/sVa+W5M0c7ggSQIbf7s4qNND8fe fLtZ4NN9hxc/8TXovZW+2gtXa3x795GBVz9NtmjUmdrpm5eN/zp3/23fu02//uqbr8DtCBzw OER6CdDBByFsLZkIKawQl/hyM0647Pb7Tz7+lvLOugURVDAoTESUS8X87GsRuRdBTC7Fcxq0 0MYbccxRxx3dKmxG/37sL8gPOwRywwM5TNDFFZFUEsYkTYztxyGXZPHJ/x7hUcstuezSSx2H ijLGEas08konmRTTSg2vnFLGN8tUs0M3jySyyPvoyzLOMtFcc6/k+vRwTwPpJLROONNEdMxE pQTUzkIXteKILymt1NJLMSWvwUHZLI8qhRzlNFJBO/6F8lAy2zzV0DMfVZQoIUNNVShAMq3V 1ltxtXVTVBn1VNQ7VS0xWDNX7VVYWUt9Fc8mIfUTWGRNjaqIZpl1lUponb3W2Gp/1dbZQOU0 yVtiR+V2W3NppDXXddlt110IeXlX3nnprbcuPVkddlxq7URX2XwBLlfOfWPdlmBevx244GgN jMfehyGOWGJBJv3VX3CHbRJWi8NVmGN9P23142JHdQpUVy8WedqJWW7Z5YcvGvncjkGWmWGB ayY5YT491tnfcX9emFScQ86YZp+PntnopZFmWumGeyb66alvHrrqlN95WeutudZV6IObDvjq qMe22eqzwZZ6Z4TR/tpttv41TjpPudsW+1md016b6rrD3jvck6HOWe2zAeza8MMRt9DsvLFe /O2+y7abcbond3rwyiV/vLvEOe/cc/f81nxuy/kO3fHTIS9d78hTb/xy0Zv7XPbZaQdscNdZ z131uI/EfXfKYR+Q98xRf93s+mpPXvnldRl+b+d1x9x0nwFPXXrjiTcUT6CB55l077pfx3fu vw8+4+qxvz18jZZdBI9vSHnhtvGFpv945vHPX3+Kv+vf//8BGEABDpCABTTgAb9zj5d4wyuv yIsf5McNBE6QghW04AUxmEENbpCDHfRRIaSDm1bwIRwBkaAHUZhCFa6QhS104QsvKCA0wKQN NP7Jg0A6AEMd7pCHPfThD4H4P21wY4Q3XA9WZnHCIC6RiU104hOh6D8xzKEJquhKG2YRRS1u kYtd9OIPZfiXceihinqA4BfRmEY1rpGNQnQfVloyAlJksY11tOMd8ehFq4jwPPqIYx4BGUhB DvKFQ2wgCWEgv0YQkpGNdOQjA1gbMt7EjHLMISQxmUlNbvIiDayhHK+SGk6OkpSlvGM1+oLI EirRlK105SuhWBBxvO8qi4TlLXGZSx+yxISnYKUugRlMYXqwBTQIpSiHmUxlLnOCBbEMM6EZ TWk2c1bTtOY1sZlNbW6Tm9305jfBGU5xjpOc5TTnOdGZTnWuk53tdOPnO+EZT3nOk571tOc9 8ZlPfe6Tn/305z8BGlCBDpSgBTXoQRGaUIUulKENdehDIRpRiU6UohW16EUxmlGNbpSjHfXo R0EaUpGOlKQlNelJUZpSla6UpS116UthGlOZzpSmNbXpTXGaU53ulKecRGZPgQrGnwaVqDoc alGRysKjJrWc+6sMU6Hawl9GlaoYXGpVsXrAq2aVqwLcalfB2r+vhpWsZTXrWdGaVrWula1t des5L2PMt76VEXNt6xDtmldK6jWvl+SrXaf617POT7BqjV9h2XpIxA52FYsta1z9StACAAA7 --------------620B48827FAC-- From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 17 19:08 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["533" "Tue" "17" "June" "1997" "19:09:01" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "13" "starship-design: FTL Drive designs" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA13604 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 19:08:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA13591 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 19:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (cisco-ts16-line9.uoregon.edu [128.223.150.209]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA10022 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 19:07:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) id TAA21452; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 19:09:01 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706180209.TAA21452@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <33A74E80.7A15@sunherald.infi.net> References: <33A74E80.7A15@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.32 under 19.15p6 XEmacs Lucid Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 532 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: FTL Drive designs Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 19:09:01 -0700 kyle writes: > an energy density of in excess of 10^28 w/cm I can't make any sense of that unit. W/cm^2 makes sense for a radiating surface, and W/cm^3 makes sense as a unit of power generated per volume of reaction, but W/cm? I can't figure out a way to interpret energy per unit time per unit distance. Unfortunately, Kyle, without an explanation of how this drive is supposed to WORK I can't take your explanation seriously. You can't just spew buzzwords; you have to explain this without making up the underlying physics. From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 17 22:05 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1274" "Tue" "17" "June" "1997" "20:46:58" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "32" "Re: starship-design: FTL Drive designs" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA14519 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:04:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA14506 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:04:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp19.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp19.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.91]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA32022; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:47:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33A75A1A.56FE@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <33A74E80.7A15@sunherald.infi.net> <199706180209.TAA21452@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1273 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, stevev@efn.org Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL Drive designs Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 20:46:58 -0700 Steve VanDevender wrote: > > kyle writes: > > an energy density of in excess of 10^28 w/cm > > I can't make any sense of that unit. W/cm^2 makes sense for a radiating > surface, and W/cm^3 makes sense as a unit of power generated per volume > of reaction, but W/cm? I can't figure out a way to interpret energy per > unit time per unit distance. My apologies. I meant W/cm^2. Please forgive this. > > Unfortunately, Kyle, without an explanation of how this drive is > supposed to WORK I can't take your explanation seriously. You can't > just spew buzzwords; you have to explain this without making up the > underlying physics. The drive works by using the negative gravitation produced by Zero- Point quantum fluctuations to warp space negatively. The plates on the ship generate the ZPQF to do this. Then it is exactly like an Alcubierre exotic matter drive, but does not require exotic matter. The segment at the front of the ship is balanced to be as massive as the ZPQF generated at the rear segment, so as to warp space as shown in the diagram I sent. It's really quite simple. Mail me if you have any more questions. I have other ideas also. Kyle Mcallister P.S.: I ordered the book you recomended. (Spacetime Physics) Thanks for recommending it to me. From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 18 07:41 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["11813" "Wed" "18" "June" "1997" "00:33:19" "-0500" "Genny Houston" "hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu" nil "310" "starship-design: This and that." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA13194 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 07:41:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mhub2.tc.umn.edu (0@mhub2.tc.umn.edu [128.101.131.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA13161 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 07:41:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maroon.tc.umn.edu by mhub2.tc.umn.edu; Wed, 18 Jun 97 00:47:01 -0500 Received: from pub-28-c-167.dialup.umn.edu by maroon.tc.umn.edu; Wed, 18 Jun 97 00:46:58 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33A7731F.D51@maroon.tc.umn.edu> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <33A74E80.7A15@sunherald.infi.net> <199706180209.TAA21452@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Genny Houston Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 11812 From: Genny Houston Sender: owner-starship-design To: Starship design group Subject: starship-design: This and that. Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 00:33:19 -0500 Hello everyone, I've been a little withdrawn lately, but now that school is over, I will be more active. I've just plowed through the latest messages, and I have a few questions and suggestions: Questions: To: Steve VanDevender Re: Traveling Faster Than Light. In message dated Sun Jun 15 1997 you write: (reformated) > More importantly, relativistic physics, as we now know it, > does not in any way prohibit a material object from traveling > at any speed less than C, but does prevent anything from traveling > faster than that. It is my understanding (limited though it may be) that Einstein's equations do not prohibit travel FASTER THAN the speed of light, but only prohibit travel AT the speed of light. Is this not correct? To: Steve VanDevender Re: Talking Faster Than Light. In message dated Sun Jun 15 1997 you write: (reformated) > The few FTL effects that are thought to exist in particle > physics don't translate to macroscopic objects, and even > when postulated don't transmit information or mass faster > than light. Again, my limited understanding tells me that communication via particle/wave duality phenomenom is possible. Via the following method: 1) Generate a single photon every 1/100 second. 2) use a beam spiltter to give the photon a 50% chance of: 3a) going to your friend (or enemy) at Tau Ceti. -or- 3b) into a trap for 12 years (perfect reflectors, whatever) Once the other photon has had enough time to arrive at Tau Ceti, send your 12 yr old photon into a double slit experiment. Your friend (or enemy) does the same. You both observe the pretty, pretty, interference pattern. Now comes the tricky part: You turn on a particle detector and are able to decide exactly which slit the photon went through. of course, your interference pattern disappears, but SO DOES THE OTHER GUY'S (and at the same time too) After sending your morse code message, you turn off your particle detector and stare at the interference pattern again (pretty... 8) Suddenly the pattern begins disappearing in an orderly fashion as your friend (who is now your enemy for ruining your interference pattern) transmits his message: >>Hey, thanks a lot, JERK! you riuned my interference pattern :( << Aside from the obvious technical problems of observing the same photon at the same time (whatever "same time" might mean)(and BTW I can finagle around that one too if you insist.) This method should allow FTL communication. and temporal communication as well. Causality be damned. To: all Re: support of Kyle First let me (mis)quote Clark's first law: "When an intelligent but young scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly correct. When an elderly but distinguished scientist says something is impossible, he is almost certainly incorrect." As an example of this I direct your attention to the well-known and oft-quoted "fact" that it is impossible to gain information about a particle without interacting with it. In a recent issue of Scientific American (I think it was Nov 96), it was demonstrated how one can gain information on a particle without interacting with it. a brief (and no-doubt garbled rendition is provided here) Consider the following setup. D1 i i (a) D0 m/--------B/S ii i D2 | | | | |(a) |(b) | | | DS---------B/S--------/m / (b) / S Legend: S - Single Photon Source DS - Downshift crystal (turns one photon into two photons of half energy) B/S - Beam Splitter. "/" indicates orientation. m/ - Mirror. "/" indicates orientation. i - interference pattern caused by equal probability of photon taking either path (a) or (b). D0 - detects existence of photon in down shift crystal (and therefore in the rest of the experiment as well.) D1 - Set in a dark band of the first interference pattern. D2 - Set in a bright band of second interference patter. Photons may take both path (a) and path (b) simultaneously. they can do this because they behave as a wave. As drawn, each and every photon generated will produce the following result: D0 D1 D2 on off on Now consider what happens when a particle P is placed in the beam path at (a): D1 ? ? ? (a) D0 m/----P B/S ??? D2 | | | | |(a) |(b) | | | DS---------B/S--------/m / (b) / S Legend: P - Particle to be studied: ?? - photon path depending on whether reflected at second B/S or not. Now since the photons cannot take both paths simultaneously, each photon must take path (a) or path (b) with a 50% chance. if path (a) photon (as particle) absorbed both D1 and D2 dark - experiment invalid, particle ruined else photon (as particle) encounters second B/S if reflected to D2 D1 dark D2 bright - no information (same as if P not there) else D1 bright D2 bright - SUCCESS Particle P exists! endif endif But lets check that light path: D1 | | | | D0 m/ P B/S D2 | | | |(b) | | DS---------B/S--------/m / (b) / S As you can see, the light never touched particle P. It is still in whatever state it was in when the experiment began. The Question I have: 1) Why did the photon (as a wave) disappear from path (a)? 2) How did the photon "know" to stop behaving as a wave and start behaving as a particle? 3) if such a well-established princple of PHYSICS can be dashed by a simple thought experiment (which anyone could have done in the last 50 years but didn't) Then how can we say that FTL is impossible? It seems to me that Kyle has done a good first order approximation of his star drive. He has told us the energy cost (10,000 times higher than the M.A.R.S. drive ;) ), it's rough size, shape and mass. He has explained the first princples of it (although he claims it is Non-Alcubierre FTL, (E-mail dated Mon, 09 Jun 1997) it looks a lot like the Alcubierre method) You may say: "But how can one generate such a tremendous negative energy (or gravitation) gradient?" This is a valid question, but we might as easily ask Kelly how he intends (exactly now) to initiate a sustained fusion burn in his explorer class engines. We have the *feeling* that sustained controlled fusion is possible, but the only demonstrated method requires temperatures and pressures found only in the core of a star. (H-bombs don't count, not controlled or sustained)(break-even fusion don't count either) Granted that we are a hell of a lot closer to fusion that we are to ZPE or FTL, but then in 1970 we were much closer to fusion than we were to personal computers. Now personal computers are everywhere and fusion is still a pipe-dream. Kyle, you have a lot of work ahead of you, you are going to have to explain in much greater detail each step of your design. I suggest you start with ZPE even if FTL doesn't work, the energy from ZPE will be useful to other designs. expect much critisism and argument from Steve and Tim, but don't take it personally. they are not trying to be mean and nasty, they are trying to help you by making you state what you mean in very precise terms. If you get stuck on the math, ask nicely, and you'll be surpirsed at how helpful they can be. If you look through all the old archives, you can see the same pattern when I brought up the MARS design. Steve, I especially remember you telling me that there was "no way" the sail could take in photons, and derive enough momentum in the reation mass to overcome the momentum gained by the sail. It wasn't until Tim solved the equations and proved that it was possible that you relented (although to be honest, my numbers and physics were far more out of whack than yours.) And I suspect that Tim did it more to prove me wrong and shut me up than to help me. ;) The Mars design has some serious Engineering problems, but the basic physics are sound, you can travel at near light speed if you can spend about 1E18 Joules for two and a half years straight. But FTL would be better, and ZPE would solve all of my transmitter problems :) Well, that's enough physics for now. I have some things to say about generating Oxygen for the trip. To: all Re: Oxygen. I have figured out a way to recycle all the oxygen (and even extract the Oxygen locked up in the Stored food. Basic Food equation: C H O + 6 O = 6 CO + 6 H O 6 12 6 2 2 2 As I've said before, the Water can be split into Oxygen and Hydrogen but what about the CO2? We must continuosly dump it into the exhaust, or otherwise get rid of it. But then i was thinking about the following equation in a book I had read. 900c 24 H + 6 CO = 6 CH + 12 H O 2 2 4 2 The products of both electrolysis reactions is: 18 H2 + 9 O2. So we must supply 6 H2 for each molecule of sugar. Now This assumes that we have a lot of heat, but that's true of all the designs I've seen so far. (except FTL of course) The methane is then used in further synthetic reations to make the various chemicals we might need, or it can be dumped into the exhaust stream to increase the mass flow in the thrust. If our hydroponics are supplemented by stored food supplies, Then a bigger problem might be Oxygen retention, rather than lack of Oxygen. -- Kevin "Tex" Houston http://umn.edu/~hous0042/index.html Webmaster http://www.urly-bird.com/index.html "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." A. Einstein PS I have a new job, I'm a webmaster at Onelink Communications. http://www.onel.com/ I didn't do that Website, so don't bother to tell me how bad it looks. From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 18 08:13 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["490" "Wed" "18" "June" "1997" "12:35:33" "+0200" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "17" "starship-design: Re: FTL Drive designs" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA25519 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 08:13:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA25484 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 08:13:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-21.svpop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0weI5N-000GT6C; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 12:35:33 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 489 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: FTL Drive designs Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 12:35:33 +0200 (MET DST) Timothy writes: >Steve VanDevender wrote: >> >>Kyle writes: >>>an energy density of in excess of 10^28 w/cm >> >>I can't make any sense of that unit. W/cm^2 makes sense for a radiating >>surface, and W/cm^3 makes sense as a unit of power generated per volume >>of reaction, but W/cm? I can't figure out a way to interpret energy per >>unit time per unit distance. > >My apologies. I meant W/cm^2. Please forgive this. Are you sure, you are talking about density, so isn't it W/cm^3 ? From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 18 08:28 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["741" "Wed" "18" "June" "1997" "09:27:50" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "22" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL Drive designs" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA00451 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 08:28:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA00431 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 08:28:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp1.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp1.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.73]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA25756; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:28:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33A80C86.78F@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 740 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL Drive designs Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 09:27:50 -0700 Timothy van der Linden wrote: > > Timothy writes: > > >Steve VanDevender wrote: > >> > >>Kyle writes: > >>>an energy density of in excess of 10^28 w/cm > >> > >>I can't make any sense of that unit. W/cm^2 makes sense for a radiating > >>surface, and W/cm^3 makes sense as a unit of power generated per volume > >>of reaction, but W/cm? I can't figure out a way to interpret energy per > >>unit time per unit distance. > > > >My apologies. I meant W/cm^2. Please forgive this. > > Are you sure, you are talking about density, so isn't it W/cm^3 ? I suppose so. It was late last night, and I had several things on my mind. Among them, getting over pneumonia (got it about a week ago, doing better now). Sorry about this inconveinience From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 18 15:33 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3834" "Wed" "18" "June" "1997" "15:32:47" "-0700" "Ken Wharton" "wharton@physics.ucla.edu" nil "70" "starship-design: Re: This and That." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA13030 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:32:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from physics.ucla.edu (physics.ucla.edu [128.97.23.13]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA12986 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from watt by physics.ucla.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA00762; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:32:49 -0700 Received: by watt (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA21228; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:32:47 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706182232.PAA21228@watt> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3833 From: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: This and That. Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:32:47 -0700 Kevin, The issue you bring up-- about getting information from a particle without affecting it-- is a good example of some dilemmas in current quantum theory. As you say, quantum mechanics is a well-established principle of physics, but it's a well-established principle that will probably change radically over the next decade or so. We should be watching developments to see if the forthcoming interpretation allows any of the ideas we're talking about for spaceship design. My feeling, though, is that the "new quantum" will turn out to dash a lot of hopes. Either way, though, the Copenhagen Interpretation is almost assuredly on the way out. The first two "Questions" you have about your thought experiment concern Wave-particle duality, and you're absolutely right that it doesn't make sense. There are plenty more examples where "wave-particle duality" leads to all sorts of dilemmas. Whatever new theory of quantum mechanics emerges, that is one aspect that will almost certainly disappear. Another thing that will (hopefully!) disappear is the concept of "collapsing a wave function" - the issue that any measurement knocks a particle into an "observable" reality. Once this has been replaced with a new theory, there won't be any conceptual problem with "measuring" a particle without interacting with it. It merely doesn't make sense in the current quantum framework-- that's not to say it doesn't make sense period. So - how to reformulate quantum without these current problems? It turns out we'll probably need to replace it with reverse-causality on the quantum scale. Reverse-causality comes with a lot of its own problems, namely paradoxes. But there's an elegant theory being batted around that nature won't allow paradoxes. If there's somehow a fundamental law of nature that paradoxes are banned, that would finally draw the line between the quantum (microscopic) and macroscopic world that physicists have been trying to define for nearly a century. Strange "Quantum" effects happen when reverse-causality does not lead to a paradox. If reverse-causality DOES lead to a paradox (i.e. changing something in the past that has already been determined), you've just entered the everyday-world regime, and the reverse-causality shuts off. If correct, these new versions of quantum theory will say something about the FTL communicator you mentioned (and ANY FTL system) - Macroscopic FTL means macroscopic time-travel (or at least time- communication). And macroscopic time-travel means Paradoxes. But if you can't use quantum effects to make a paradox, then the whole scheme will fail. There's simply no way around it. Apart from all this brand-new, unproved theory, I personally don't believe it's possible to construct a Pure Paradox. From first principles, a pure paradox is a contradiction of itself, and (for me, anyway) that in itself proves that paradoxes are impossible. If there can't be paradoxes, there can't be time-travel, and therefore there can't be FTL. The only possible way out (besides discounting free will) is if there are an infinite number of possible universes: an idea I find very disturbing. I'm not saying FTL's impossible, but there is a certain intellectual coherence of the concept of reality: the concept that once something "happens", nothing can change the fact that it did, in fact, happen. FTL begins to unravel this whole concept of what reality is, and my confidence in reality is why I'm very skeptical that anything along those lines will ever be possible. And if it is, spacetravel will probably be the least of humanity's concerns. I agree with your advice to Kyle; let's tap the ZPE and forget FTL. At least I can philosophically handle the consequences of stealing energy from a vacuum. Ken From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 18 15:51 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1364" "Wed" "18" "June" "1997" "15:52:01" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "27" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL Drive designs" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA19203 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:51:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA19189 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:51:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [198.68.17.19]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA11231 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:50:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) id PAA24370; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:52:01 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706182252.PAA24370@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <33A80C86.78F@sunherald.infi.net> References: <33A80C86.78F@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.32 under 19.15p6 XEmacs Lucid Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1363 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL Drive designs Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:52:01 -0700 Let's think about Kyle's figure of 10^28 W/cm^3. Viewed as a rate of of total mass-to-energy conversion, that's 1.1 * 10^11 kg/s * c^2 per cm^3. Very roughly that is like continuously shoving neutronium and antineutronium in a blender. For reference, the total solar flux is about 3.6 * 10^26 W; your energy flux is literally like a nova per cubic centimeter per second. I have only two things to say about that figure. 1. If that kind of energy production density was possible, we could send entire planets on high-acceleration relativistic trips around the universe using tiny reactors. 2. I don't think it's feasible to use this for a man-rated spacecraft. No human could stand to be near that kind of flux without shielding that's at least as fanciful as the reactor that produces it. I have serious reservations about "zero-point energy" being useful. My primary concern is that extracting such energy from the vacuum has to be disruptive -- you're lowering the ground state of the vacuum in a region, and that's got to produce some kind of effect as that disturbance propagates into the surrounding vacuum. And if you extract that energy by making the vacuum effectively unstable, what risk do you run of having that reaction be self-sustaining and uncontainable? For all we know the Big Bang might have been someone's disastrous ZPE experiment. From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 18 16:11 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2594" "Wed" "18" "June" "1997" "16:12:40" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "57" "starship-design: This and that." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA27002 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 16:11:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA26978 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 16:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [198.68.17.19]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA13970 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 16:10:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) id QAA24419; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 16:12:40 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706182312.QAA24419@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <33A7731F.D51@maroon.tc.umn.edu> References: <33A74E80.7A15@sunherald.infi.net> <199706180209.TAA21452@tzadkiel.efn.org> <33A7731F.D51@maroon.tc.umn.edu> X-Mailer: VM 6.32 under 19.15p6 XEmacs Lucid Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 2593 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: This and that. Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 16:12:40 -0700 Genny (actually Kevin) Houston writes: > To: Steve VanDevender > Re: Traveling Faster Than Light. > > In message dated Sun Jun 15 1997 you write: (reformated) > > > More importantly, relativistic physics, as we now know it, > > does not in any way prohibit a material object from traveling > > at any speed less than C, but does prevent anything from traveling > > faster than that. > > It is my understanding (limited though it may be) that Einstein's > equations do not prohibit travel FASTER THAN the speed of light, > but only prohibit travel AT the speed of light. Is this not correct? The problem is that if you go faster than light Einstein's equations start producing complex numbers (that is, numbers with both real and imaginary components) as results. Nobody knows how to interpret the imaginary components in a physical context, nor has any evidence of physical phenomena with these quantities been seen. > To: Steve VanDevender > Re: Talking Faster Than Light. > > In message dated Sun Jun 15 1997 you write: (reformated) > > > The few FTL effects that are thought to exist in particle > > physics don't translate to macroscopic objects, and even > > when postulated don't transmit information or mass faster > > than light. > > Again, my limited understanding tells me that communication via > particle/wave duality phenomenom is possible. Many people have thought so until they actually worked it out in detail. For example, if you try to treat tachyons as quantum particles you can either have particles that go faster than light that can't interact with anything, or if they can interact with anything they have to go slower than light. The sci.physics FAQ has quite a bit of material on relativity and quantum mechanics that is relevant to this discussion. The primary mirror is at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/relativity.html Also in hopes avoid the charge that I'm pooh-poohing FTL without having studied up on it, I will recommend the book _Faster than Light_ by Nick Herbert (who has also written a book on QM, _Quantum Reality_, that I haven't read) which covers the issues around FTL and modern physics in a fairly realistic (and even slightly optimistic) way, while still recognizing the fairly substantial difficulties of reconciling FTL against the way we currently see the universe to work. His opinion is that general relativity and quantum mechanics are the most likely to have any possible FTL loopholes, but also explains why the various proposed loopholes presented to date are physically implausible. From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 18 19:33 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1787" "Wed" "18" "June" "1997" "20:31:52" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "40" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL Drive designs" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA26240 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:32:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA26226 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:32:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp1.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp15.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.87]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA02370 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:31:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33A8A828.7DEB@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <33A80C86.78F@sunherald.infi.net> <199706182252.PAA24370@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1786 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL Drive designs Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:31:52 -0700 Steve VanDevender wrote: > > Let's think about Kyle's figure of 10^28 W/cm^3. Viewed as a rate of of > total mass-to-energy conversion, that's 1.1 * 10^11 kg/s * c^2 per cm^3. > Very roughly that is like continuously shoving neutronium and > antineutronium in a blender. For reference, the total solar flux is > about 3.6 * 10^26 W; your energy flux is literally like a nova per cubic > centimeter per second. > > I have only two things to say about that figure. > > 1. If that kind of energy production density was possible, we could > send entire planets on high-acceleration relativistic trips around the > universe using tiny reactors. Why would you want to? Besides, if you have studied Alcubierre's designs, you would se that this would require vast shaped drives to work. So, no we couldn't send entire planets. > > 2. I don't think it's feasible to use this for a man-rated spacecraft. > No human could stand to be near that kind of flux without shielding > that's at least as fanciful as the reactor that produces it. Its in a warp held away from the ship. Besides, that much energy wouldn't necessarily be neccesary. > > I have serious reservations about "zero-point energy" being useful. My > primary concern is that extracting such energy from the vacuum has to be > disruptive -- you're lowering the ground state of the vacuum in a > region, and that's got to produce some kind of effect as that > disturbance propagates into the surrounding vacuum. And if you extract > that energy by making the vacuum effectively unstable, what risk do you > run of having that reaction be self-sustaining and uncontainable? For > all we know the Big Bang might have been someone's disastrous ZPE > experiment. Because its been done before, and we're still here right? From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 18 19:39 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3358" "Wed" "18" "June" "1997" "20:39:27" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "78" "Re: starship-design: This and that." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA28291 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:39:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA28276 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:39:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp1.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp15.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.87]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA09724 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:39:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33A8A9EF.387B@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <33A74E80.7A15@sunherald.infi.net> <199706180209.TAA21452@tzadkiel.efn.org> <33A7731F.D51@maroon.tc.umn.edu> <199706182312.QAA24419@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 3357 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: This and that. Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:39:27 -0700 Steve VanDevender wrote: > > Genny (actually Kevin) Houston writes: > > To: Steve VanDevender > > Re: Traveling Faster Than Light. > > > > In message dated Sun Jun 15 1997 you write: (reformated) > > > > > More importantly, relativistic physics, as we now know it, > > > does not in any way prohibit a material object from traveling > > > at any speed less than C, but does prevent anything from traveling > > > faster than that. > > > > It is my understanding (limited though it may be) that Einstein's > > equations do not prohibit travel FASTER THAN the speed of light, > > but only prohibit travel AT the speed of light. Is this not correct? > > The problem is that if you go faster than light Einstein's equations > start producing complex numbers (that is, numbers with both real and > imaginary components) as results. Nobody knows how to interpret the > imaginary components in a physical context, nor has any evidence of > physical phenomena with these quantities been seen. Maybe because we haven't done it yet? > > > To: Steve VanDevender > > Re: Talking Faster Than Light. > > > > In message dated Sun Jun 15 1997 you write: (reformated) > > > > > The few FTL effects that are thought to exist in particle > > > physics don't translate to macroscopic objects, and even > > > when postulated don't transmit information or mass faster > > > than light. > > > > Again, my limited understanding tells me that communication via > > particle/wave duality phenomenom is possible. > > Many people have thought so until they actually worked it out in detail. > For example, if you try to treat tachyons as quantum particles you can > either have particles that go faster than light that can't interact with > anything, or if they can interact with anything they have to go slower > than light. > > The sci.physics FAQ has quite a bit of material on relativity and > quantum mechanics that is relevant to this discussion. The primary > mirror is at > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/relativity.html > > Also in hopes avoid the charge that I'm pooh-poohing FTL without having > studied up on it, I will recommend the book _Faster than Light_ by Nick > Herbert (who has also written a book on QM, _Quantum Reality_, that I > haven't read) which covers the issues around FTL and modern physics in a > fairly realistic (and even slightly optimistic) way, while still > recognizing the fairly substantial difficulties of reconciling FTL > against the way we currently see the universe to work. His opinion is > that general relativity and quantum mechanics are the most likely to > have any possible FTL loopholes, but also explains why the various > proposed loopholes presented to date are physically implausible. The loopholes may have their problems, but it is too early to dismiss FTL travel. FTL communication CANNOT be dismissed. It has been done already. I know you won't believe it, but most people don't believe things that are hard to accept against relativity. BTW: Have you heard of autodynamics? According to it FTL is easily possible. And who's to say that relativity is the almighty God of physics? Maybe its not. Remember Arthur C. Clarke's states of developing a theory: 1: Its impossible, don't waste my time. 2: Its possible but impractical 3: I agreed with you all along Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 18 20:08 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2992" "Wed" "18" "June" "1997" "20:08:38" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "60" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL Drive designs" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA05037 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA04993 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:08:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (cisco-ts8-line14.uoregon.edu [128.223.150.78]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA11368 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:06:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) id UAA25001; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:08:38 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706190308.UAA25001@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <33A8A828.7DEB@sunherald.infi.net> References: <33A80C86.78F@sunherald.infi.net> <199706182252.PAA24370@tzadkiel.efn.org> <33A8A828.7DEB@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.32 under 19.15p6 XEmacs Lucid Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 2991 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL Drive designs Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:08:38 -0700 kyle writes: > Steve VanDevender wrote: > > Let's think about Kyle's figure of 10^28 W/cm^3. Viewed as a rate of of > > total mass-to-energy conversion, that's 1.1 * 10^11 kg/s * c^2 per cm^3. > > Very roughly that is like continuously shoving neutronium and > > antineutronium in a blender. For reference, the total solar flux is > > about 3.6 * 10^26 W; your energy flux is literally like a nova per cubic > > centimeter per second. > > > > I have only two things to say about that figure. > > > > 1. If that kind of energy production density was possible, we could > > send entire planets on high-acceleration relativistic trips around the > > universe using tiny reactors. > > Why would you want to? Besides, if you have studied Alcubierre's > designs, you would se that this would require vast shaped drives to > work. So, no we couldn't send entire planets. For a tiny fraction of that kind of energy output, we could go to the stars in relativistic spacecraft. But with 10^28 W, you can move an entire planet around -- the Earth weighs something like 6 * 10^24 kg, and with hundreds of J/kg you could accelerate it rapidly. > > 2. I don't think it's feasible to use this for a man-rated spacecraft. > > No human could stand to be near that kind of flux without shielding > > that's at least as fanciful as the reactor that produces it. > > Its in a warp held away from the ship. Besides, that much energy > wouldn't necessarily be neccesary. Warp field? What's that? Held away from the ship how? With what? > > I have serious reservations about "zero-point energy" being useful. My > > primary concern is that extracting such energy from the vacuum has to be > > disruptive -- you're lowering the ground state of the vacuum in a > > region, and that's got to produce some kind of effect as that > > disturbance propagates into the surrounding vacuum. And if you extract > > that energy by making the vacuum effectively unstable, what risk do you > > run of having that reaction be self-sustaining and uncontainable? For > > all we know the Big Bang might have been someone's disastrous ZPE > > experiment. > > Because its been done before, and we're still here right? Umm, the idea was that the Big Bang was precipitated by someone in an earlier universe trying to extract zero-point energy, whose experiment destabilized the vacuum, destroyed their universe and everyone in it, and created ours. We weren't there yet. In any case, since you claim to know so much about zero-point energy, what happens when you extract energy from a region of vacuum, producing disequilibrium with the surrounding vacuum? Something has to happen. What I meant about spewing buzzwords still holds. If you are using real physics, then you can explain it without having to make everything up. I certainly won't be convinced by snappy repartee. We need real figures, real theories, and real verification before we can take all this seriously. From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 18 20:14 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["327" "Wed" "18" "June" "1997" "22:01:13" "-0500" "\"Kevin \\\"Tex\\\" Houston\"" "hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu" nil "13" "starship-design: ACCCKKPPPPTTHHH! Kevin, Not Genny" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA07201 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:14:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mhub1.tc.umn.edu (0@mhub1.tc.umn.edu [128.101.131.51]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA07186 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:14:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maroon.tc.umn.edu by mhub1.tc.umn.edu; Wed, 18 Jun 97 22:14:45 -0500 Received: from pub-28-a-143.dialup.umn.edu by maroon.tc.umn.edu; Wed, 18 Jun 97 22:14:44 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33A8A0F9.FC6@maroon.tc.umn.edu> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <33A74E80.7A15@sunherald.infi.net> <199706180209.TAA21452@tzadkiel.efn.org> <33A7731F.D51@maroon.tc.umn.edu> <199706182312.QAA24419@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kevin \"Tex\" Houston" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 326 From: "Kevin \"Tex\" Houston" Sender: owner-starship-design To: Starship design group Subject: starship-design: ACCCKKPPPPTTHHH! Kevin, Not Genny Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:01:13 -0500 Steve VanDevender wrote: > > Genny (actually Kevin) Houston writes: ACK! yes, you are right, IT's my own fault. Genny is looking for a job (in minneapolis in accounting)and used the E-mail account to send a thank-you note. I forgot to change it back. P.S. Genny is short for Genevieve. (In case you wondered) :) From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 18 20:24 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3219" "Wed" "18" "June" "1997" "20:24:12" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "62" "Re: starship-design: This and that." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA09663 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:24:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA09627 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:23:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (cisco-ts8-line14.uoregon.edu [128.223.150.78]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA12902 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:22:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) id UAA25045; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:24:12 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706190324.UAA25045@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <33A8A9EF.387B@sunherald.infi.net> References: <33A74E80.7A15@sunherald.infi.net> <199706180209.TAA21452@tzadkiel.efn.org> <33A7731F.D51@maroon.tc.umn.edu> <199706182312.QAA24419@tzadkiel.efn.org> <33A8A9EF.387B@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.32 under 19.15p6 XEmacs Lucid Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 3218 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: This and that. Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:24:12 -0700 kyle writes: > > The problem is that if you go faster than light Einstein's equations > > start producing complex numbers (that is, numbers with both real and > > imaginary components) as results. Nobody knows how to interpret the > > imaginary components in a physical context, nor has any evidence of > > physical phenomena with these quantities been seen. > > Maybe because we haven't done it yet? If FTL is possible, then there's a good chance that it can happen as part of some natural phenomenon, and that would produce pretty noticeable effects. Not observing FTL in the natural universe is a pretty good indication that it can't be _too_ easy. Nevertheless, any FTL method will have to be reconciled with relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which have been extensively tested by experiment and for which there aren't any widely-acknowledged exceptions. > The loopholes may have their problems, but it is too early to dismiss > FTL travel. FTL communication CANNOT be dismissed. It has been done > already. I know you won't believe it, but most people don't believe > things that are hard to accept against relativity. If FTL communication "CANNOT be dismissed", then you're implying it has been experimentally demonstrated in a very obvious way. When was that? I apparently missed the news. > BTW: Have you heard of autodynamics? According to it FTL is easily > possible. And who's to say that relativity is the almighty God of > physics? Maybe its not. Is autodynamics experimentally demonstrated? You're claiming it makes predictions that relativity would not, so if it is to be accepted these predictions have to be observable in reality. Relativity is a widely accepted theory because it makes predictions that have been matched with reality. It displaced Newton's theories of dynamics because it made predictions that Newton's theories did not, and experiment matched Einstein's theory better than Newton's for domains that weren't easily accessible to previous experimenters. We may certainly find relativity revised when experimenters have access to domains in which relativity has not been extensively tested. However, note that Newton's theories are still taught because, at low velocities and energies, they are accurate enough. Similarly I expect whatever might come after relativity to not completely abandon its strictures in the domains for which it's been tested. > Remember Arthur C. Clarke's states of developing a theory: > > 1: Its impossible, don't waste my time. > 2: Its possible but impractical > 3: I agreed with you all along In order for that progression to work, you have to have a working theory, that is, one that can be tested against reality and which passes its tests. You can't do that with just any theory; most theories proposed by scientists are wrong, and fail their tests, and are never heard of again. The theories that survive are the ones that pass their tests over and over and over again. We have theories like that in relativity and quantum mechanics. They may not be perfect, but they're the best we've got, and you can't displace them without coming up with something that doesn't contradict what we already know. From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 19 05:08 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1011" "Wed" "18" "June" "1997" "20:16:45" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "28" "RE: starship-design: Re: This and That." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA00565 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 05:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA00550 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 05:08:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p7.gnt.com (x2p7.gnt.com [204.49.68.212]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA31414 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 07:08:34 -0500 Received: by x2p7.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC7C7F.95F6C6C0@x2p7.gnt.com>; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 07:08:27 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC7C7F.95F6C6C0@x2p7.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id FAA00553 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1010 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'Ken Wharton'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: This and That. Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:16:45 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: Ken Wharton [SMTP:wharton@physics.ucla.edu] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 1997 5:33 PM To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: This and That. Kevin, The issue you bring up Edited for brevity My feeling, though, is that the "new quantum" will turn out to dash a lot of hopes. Either way, though, the Copenhagen Interpretation is almost assuredly on the way out. The only thing certain about this statement is that the interpretation will assuredly change in the next dozen or so years and probably again a dozen or so after that. I see no basis for assuming that the new interpretation will either eliminate or enable FTL...I would like to direct the reader's attentionto the "signature file" at the end. Lee Parker Long experience has taught me not to believe in the limitations indicated by purely theoretical considerations. These - as we well know - are based on insufficient knowledge of all the relevant factors." Guglielmo Marconi From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 19 05:09 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2934" "Wed" "18" "June" "1997" "20:31:01" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "48" "RE: starship-design: Re: FTL Drive designs" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA00627 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 05:09:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA00616 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 05:09:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p7.gnt.com (x2p7.gnt.com [204.49.68.212]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA31443 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 07:09:12 -0500 Received: by x2p7.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC7C7F.AF229020@x2p7.gnt.com>; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 07:09:10 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC7C7F.AF229020@x2p7.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id FAA00618 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2933 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: FTL Drive designs Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:31:01 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: Steve VanDevender [SMTP:stevev@efn.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 1997 5:52 PM To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL Drive designs Let's think about Kyle's figure of 10^28 W/cm^3. Viewed as a rate of of total mass-to-energy conversion, that's 1.1 * 10^11 kg/s * c^2 per cm^3. Very roughly that is like continuously shoving neutronium and antineutronium in a blender. For reference, the total solar flux is about 3.6 * 10^26 W; your energy flux is literally like a nova per cubic centimeter per second. I have only two things to say about that figure. 1. If that kind of energy production density was possible, we could send entire planets on high-acceleration relativistic trips around the universe using tiny reactors. 2. I don't think it's feasible to use this for a man-rated spacecraft. No human could stand to be near that kind of flux without shielding that's at least as fanciful as the reactor that produces it. I have serious reservations about "zero-point energy" being useful. My primary concern is that extracting such energy from the vacuum has to be disruptive -- you're lowering the ground state of the vacuum in a region, and that's got to produce some kind of effect as that disturbance propagates into the surrounding vacuum. And if you extract that energy by making the vacuum effectively unstable, what risk do you run of having that reaction be self-sustaining and uncontainable? For all we know the Big Bang might have been someone's disastrous ZPE experiment. Actually, his figure is correct. The amount of potential energy from ALL possible states in one cubic centimeter is and I quote "sufficient to boil off all of Earth's ocean's instantly". Perhaps the author was exaggerating, but somehow I don't think so. I doubt that any reactor capable of harnessing those energy densities will ever be described as "small". At least not using any technology currently available. That said, no one has ever said that we had to tap EVERY potential state. It may be possible to tap just one potential state or even fractional potential states. Now we are talking about something that might be useful in the near term for non-FTL spacecraft or perhaps even smaller devices. I reiterate my earlier caution however, it would be exceedingly bad form to attempt to liberate any significant amount of this energy without thoroughly understanding the theory that underlies it. There has been some speculation in the media (quite a few years ago) that the government was purposefully surpressing this research. I can't say that I would blame them, as Steve says, this could be the ULTIMATE accident. Lee Parker Long experience has taught me not to believe in the limitations indicated by purely theoretical considerations. These - as we well know - are based on insufficient knowledge of all the relevant factors." Guglielmo Marconi From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 19 06:39 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["572" "Thu" "19" "June" "1997" "15:39:06" "+0200" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "21" "starship-design: 10^28" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA14448 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 06:39:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA14436 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 06:39:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [195.18.75.10] by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0wehQY-000HGwC; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 15:39:06 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 571 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: 10^28 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 15:39:06 +0200 (MET DST) To everybody, Kyle wrote at 06-17-97 19:57 ... an energy density of in excess of 10^28 w/cm would be required to maintain the negative gravitation on the rear stator. We can't begin to produce this energy ... As we know by know he made a mistake using cm instead of cm^2 instead of cm^3. What most of us don't know yet, is that he also made a mistake in using Watt instead of Joule. This is at least what Kyle wrote when I asked him in a private letter. Anyhow his words "energy density" seem to be more correct than the scientific notation of his words. Timothy From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 19 11:20 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1834" "Thu" "19" "June" "1997" "12:19:42" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "35" "starship-design: FTL, ZPE n' stuff" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA11413 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:19:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA11312 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:19:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp6.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp6.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.78]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA20116 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 14:19:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33A9864D.18C4@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Length: 1833 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: FTL, ZPE n' stuff Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 12:19:42 -0700 In re of Steve VanDevender's letters: Maybe you dismiss autodynamics. I don't. It has expirimental evidence. What evidence do you ask? It explains the orbital precession of EVERY planet, not just one. There are more and more things like this. Research it for yourself. I know some of you are just hard core relativity people. I'm not. Newtons theories didn't seem easy to disprove. Then relativity came along. I ask every scientist: prove that relativity can't at least have additions. Show me why this is so forbidden. If Einstein himself had been here he would have easily admitted that we haven't even begun to see the whole picture. Zero-Point energy: Repercussions in the vacuum. I haven't heard of it,but I assume its prevented when the negative energy falls back into the vacuum. Anyways what I meant by saying "we've done it before" is that we, humans, in this universe, have performed ZPE expiriments before. Some were sucessful in producing over-unity energy. As to who and when FTL communication took place: Professor Günthe Nimitz and a group of researchers at the University of Cologne in Germany have transmitted a microwave signal across a path or 11.4 cm at a measured velocity of 4.7 TIMES LIGHT SPEED. Argue that if you will. It has been done, witnessed, and done again. Even here in the US, we sent a signal at 1.69 times lightspeed. That way done by Dr. Raymond Chiao at the University of Califonia at Berkely. So you see where I have my arguments. FTL travel is quite possible. FTL communication has been done. We have 58 years to perfect it in. Out of the question? Think about it. Technology doubles each year. Steve VanDevender: if you had studied Alcubierre's theory you would have seen the underlying physics of my drive design. Therefore you see, I was not "spewing buzzwords". Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 19 11:52 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1347" "Thu" "19" "June" "1997" "11:53:35" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "24" "starship-design: FTL, ZPE n' stuff" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA23607 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:52:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA23574 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:52:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [198.68.17.19]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA02221 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:51:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) id LAA27828; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:53:35 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706191853.LAA27828@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <33A9864D.18C4@sunherald.infi.net> References: <33A9864D.18C4@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.32 under 19.15p6 XEmacs Lucid Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1346 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: FTL, ZPE n' stuff Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:53:35 -0700 Kyle, apparently I haven't made my point clearly enough. We may be engaged in designing imaginary starships, but we have so far taken an an engineering approach to doing so. That means that if we are to use FTL, we must have an _engineering_ understanding of FTL, and any plausible FTL theories that exist are too new and unproven to be used for engineering -- none of them have yet translated into making a material object go faster than light. The same goes for any other physics and technology that these designs use -- they have to be understood, and proven, because you can't do engineering with something you don't understand. I cite relativity theory not as a be-all and end-all of science, but as a theory that is understood and proven well enough to have engineering knowledge. Even your TV set has to be designed with relativistic effects taken into account. Even if relativity is not complete, there's no demonstrated successor. That doesn't mean there won't be, but again, we have to design with what we have, not what we wish we had. Meanwhile, I'd be happy to read up on the various theories you speak about, if you can give specific references to them -- i.e. titles of books or papers, URLs of web pages, etc. As I've also emphasized, science is about verifiable results, and I will believe the things that I can verify. From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 19 13:22 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["811" "Thu" "19" "June" "1997" "13:22:31" "-0700" "Ken Wharton" "wharton@physics.ucla.edu" nil "21" "starship-design: Re: FTL, ZPE n' stuff" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA28264 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:22:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from physics.ucla.edu (physics.ucla.edu [128.97.23.13]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA28245 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:22:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from watt by physics.ucla.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA03519; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:22:29 -0700 Received: by watt (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA10912; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:22:31 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706192022.NAA10912@watt> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 810 From: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: FTL, ZPE n' stuff Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:22:31 -0700 Kyle writes: As to who and when FTL communication took place: Professor G=FCnthe Nimit= z and a group of researchers at the University of Cologne in Germany have transmitted a microwave signal across a path or 11.4 cm at a measured velocity of 4.7 TIMES LIGHT SPEED. Argue that if you will. It has been done, witnessed, and done again. Even here in the US, we sent a signal at 1.69 times lightspeed. That way done by Dr. Raymond Chiao at the University of Califonia at Berkely. This is far from a cut-and-dried FTL experiment. Chiao, for instance, does not even claim that he is violating Einsteinian physics, and his interpretation of what is happening can also be applied to the Nimitz experiment. For an interesting summary check out this web page: http://mist.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw75.html Ken From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 19 16:31 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil] ["425" "Thu" "19" "June" "1997" "18:12:27" "-0500" "Michael Shipp" "mkshp@ionet.net" "<3.0.1.32.19970619181227.008fade0@ionet.net>" "12" "Re: starship-design: FTL, ZPE n' stuff" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA12168 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:31:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ionet.net (ultra2.ionet.net [206.41.128.42]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA12148 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:31:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mshipp (okcnas3-01.ionet.net [207.204.116.109]) by mail.ionet.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA04373 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:31:21 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970619181227.008fade0@ionet.net> X-Sender: mkshp@ionet.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <199706191853.LAA27828@tzadkiel.efn.org> References: <33A9864D.18C4@sunherald.infi.net> <33A9864D.18C4@sunherald.infi.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Michael Shipp Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 424 From: Michael Shipp Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL, ZPE n' stuff Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:12:27 -0500 At 11:53 AM 6/19/97 -0700, you wrote: This has nothing to do with starship design. Last year a friend wanted to be on this list for a while because he didn't have email. Well, he has it now, and I've been slack in sending email to the list manager. So whoever that may be, could you please remove this address from the list. Thank you. In Christ, Michael Shipp mkshp@ionet.net mshipp@ou.edu http://www.ionet.net/~mkshp/ From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 19 19:21 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1342" "Thu" "19" "June" "1997" "22:21:13" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "40" "Re: starship-design: FTL Drive designs" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA01947 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:21:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout18.mail.aol.com (emout18.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.44]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA01932 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:21:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout18.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id WAA20798; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:21:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970619222113_-594451239@emout18.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1341 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: stk@sunherald.infi.net, owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu, KellySt@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL Drive designs Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:21:13 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/18/97 6:07:06 AM, stk@sunherald.infi.net (kyle) wrote: >In reply to Kelly Starks' message: > > >My estimates and ideas are sketchy, but at least they're something >to go on. > >Power requirements: When you speak of this, I assume you mean just >for the drive, but I'll include this note: Remember, you have to >accelerate away from a massive body to start the drive. That means >leaving the solar system under sublight engines. I don't have >exact numbers, but an energy density of in excess of 10^28 w/cm >would be required to maintain the negative gravitation on the >rear stator. We can't begin to produce this energy, but I think >it safe to say that 10^23 watts could be boosted via means Isn't that approaching the total power output of the sun? Or about the equiv of 10^14 commercial power plants? With that much power we could drive the ship out of Sol using a maser sail. It would also be enough to fry and power system I could think of. Just a nit. >I have various other theories on FTL travel, some including warping >space >by magnetic fields. This is just a theory, so it might work and it might >not, but I think we can at least estimate on FTL drives for use in our >starship. > >If you would like to know about my other ideas, let me know. > >Kyle Mcallister Sure, run them. Kelly From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 19 19:23 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1540" "Thu" "19" "June" "1997" "22:22:23" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "42" "Re: starship-design: FTL Drive designs" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA02296 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:23:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout02.mail.aol.com (emout02.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.93]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA02280 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:23:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout02.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id WAA02463; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:22:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970619222117_-493860441@emout02.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1539 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: stk@sunherald.infi.net, owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, stevev@efn.org Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL Drive designs Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:22:23 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/18/97 6:09:08 AM, stk@sunherald.infi.net (kyle) wrote: >Steve VanDevender wrote: >> >> kyle writes: >> > an energy density of in excess of 10^28 w/cm >> >> I can't make any sense of that unit. W/cm^2 makes sense for a radiating >> surface, and W/cm^3 makes sense as a unit of power generated per volume >> of reaction, but W/cm? I can't figure out a way to interpret energy per >> unit time per unit distance. > >My apologies. I meant W/cm^2. Please forgive this. > >> >> Unfortunately, Kyle, without an explanation of how this drive is >> supposed to WORK I can't take your explanation seriously. You can't >> just spew buzzwords; you have to explain this without making up the >> underlying physics. > >The drive works by using the negative gravitation produced by Zero- >Point quantum fluctuations to warp space negatively. The plates on >the ship generate the ZPQF to do this. Then it is exactly like an >Alcubierre exotic matter drive, but does not require exotic matter. >The segment at the front of the ship is balanced to be as massive >as the ZPQF generated at the rear segment, so as to warp space as >shown in the diagram I sent. It's really quite simple. Mail me if >you have any more questions. I have other ideas also. > >Kyle Mcallister > >P.S.: I ordered the book you recomended. (Spacetime Physics) Thanks >for recommending it to me. How much does this rig weigh? Its starting to sound like it eiather outweighs a moon, or couldn't out accelerate (virtually speakin?) a sail boat. Kelly From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 19 19:23 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["8077" "Thu" "19" "June" "1997" "22:23:12" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "229" "Re: starship-design: This and that." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA02379 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:23:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout05.mail.aol.com (emout05.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.96]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA02364 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:23:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout05.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id WAA29627; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:23:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970619222124_644319521@emout05.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 8076 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu, owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: This and that. Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:23:12 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/18/97 5:51:16 PM, hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Genny Houston) wrote: >Hello everyone, > >I've been a little withdrawn lately, but now that school is over, I will >be more active. > >I've just plowed through the latest messages, and I have a few questions >and suggestions: > >Questions: > >To: Steve VanDevender >Re: Traveling Faster Than Light. > >In message dated Sun Jun 15 1997 you write: (reformated) > >> More importantly, relativistic physics, as we now know it, >> does not in any way prohibit a material object from traveling >> at any speed less than C, but does prevent anything from traveling >> faster than that. > >It is my understanding (limited though it may be) that Einstein's >equations do not prohibit travel FASTER THAN the speed of light, >but only prohibit travel AT the speed of light. Is this not correct? Thats what I remember. Of course that transition past C might be a problem. Its not a theoretical imposibility. >To: Steve VanDevender >Re: Talking Faster Than Light. > >In message dated Sun Jun 15 1997 you write: (reformated) > >> The few FTL effects that are thought to exist in particle >> physics don't translate to macroscopic objects, and even >> when postulated don't transmit information or mass faster >> than light. > >Again, my limited understanding tells me that communication via >particle/wave duality phenomenom is possible. Via the following method: > >1) Generate a single photon every 1/100 second. >2) use a beam spiltter to give the photon a 50% chance of: > 3a) going to your friend (or enemy) at Tau Ceti. > -or- > 3b) into a trap for 12 years (perfect reflectors, whatever) > >Once the other photon has had enough time to arrive at Tau Ceti, send >your 12 yr old photon into a double slit experiment. Your friend (or >enemy) does the same. You both observe the pretty, pretty, interference >pattern. > >Now comes the tricky part: >You turn on a particle detector and are able to decide exactly which >slit the photon went through. of course, your interference pattern >disappears, but > >SO DOES THE OTHER GUY'S (and at the same time too) > >After sending your morse code message, you turn off your particle >detector and stare at the interference pattern again (pretty... 8) > >Suddenly the pattern begins disappearing in an orderly fashion as your >friend (who is now your enemy for ruining your interference pattern) >transmits his message: > >>>Hey, thanks a lot, JERK! you riuned my interference pattern :( << > >Aside from the obvious technical problems of observing the same photon >at the same time (whatever "same time" might mean)(and BTW I can finagle >around that one too if you insist.) This method should allow FTL >communication. and temporal communication as well. Causality be >damned. Sounds familure? Oh, what do you project your interstellar interfearence pattern on? >To: all >Re: support of Kyle > >First let me (mis)quote Clark's first law: > >"When an intelligent but young scientist says that something is >possible, he is almost certainly correct. When an elderly but >distinguished scientist says something is impossible, he is almost >certainly incorrect." Well its not always true. ;) >The Question I have: > >1) Why did the photon (as a wave) disappear from path (a)? OH, I know this one! To get the the other side? state? >2) How did the photon "know" to stop behaving as a wave and start >behaving as a particle? Instinct, pure instinct. >3) if such a well-established princple of PHYSICS can be dashed by a >simple thought experiment (which anyone could have done in the last 50 >years but didn't) > > Then how can we say that FTL is impossible? You close your eyes very tight, stick your fingers in your ears and screem "I woun't beleave in FTL. I woun't beleave in FTL...." >It seems to me that Kyle has done a good first order approximation of >his star drive. He has told us the energy cost (10,000 times higher >than the M.A.R.S. drive ;) ), it's rough size, shape and mass. I must have missed the size and mass part. >He has explained the first princples of it (although he claims it is >Non-Alcubierre FTL, (E-mail dated Mon, 09 Jun 1997) it looks a lot like >the Alcubierre method) > >You may say: "But how can one generate such a tremendous negative energy >(or gravitation) gradient?" > >This is a valid question, but we might as easily ask Kelly how he >intends (exactly now) to initiate a sustained fusion burn in his >explorer class engines. ---- Would you prefer pulsed? >--We have the *feeling* that sustained controlled >fusion is possible, but the only demonstrated method requires >temperatures and pressures found only in the core of a star. (H-bombs >don't count, not controlled or sustained)(break-even fusion don't count >either) > >Granted that we are a hell of a lot closer to fusion that we are to ZPE >or FTL, but then in 1970 we were much closer to fusion than we were to >personal computers. Now personal computers are everywhere and fusion is >still a pipe-dream. > >Kyle, you have a lot of work ahead of you, you are going to have to >explain in much greater detail each step of your design. I suggest you >start with ZPE even if FTL doesn't work, the energy from ZPE will be >useful to other designs. expect much critisism and argument from Steve >and Tim, but don't take it personally. they are not trying to be mean >and nasty, they are trying to help you by making you state what you mean >in very precise terms. If you get stuck on the math, ask nicely, and >you'll be surpirsed at how helpful they can be. > >If you look through all the old archives, you can see the same pattern >when I brought up the MARS design. Steve, I especially remember you >telling me that there was "no way" the sail could take in photons, and >derive enough momentum in the reation mass to overcome the momentum >gained by the sail. It wasn't until Tim solved the equations and proved >that it was possible that you relented (although to be honest, my >numbers and physics were far more out of whack than yours.) And I >suspect that Tim did it more to prove me wrong and shut me up than to >help me. ;) > >The Mars design has some serious Engineering problems, but the basic >physics are sound, you can travel at near light speed if you can spend >about 1E18 Joules for two and a half years straight. > >But FTL would be better, and ZPE would solve all of my transmitter >problems :) > > >Well, that's enough physics for now. I have some things to say about >generating Oxygen for the trip. > > > >To: all >Re: Oxygen. > >I have figured out a way to recycle all the oxygen (and even extract the >Oxygen locked up in the Stored food. > > >Basic Food equation: > >C H O + 6 O = 6 CO + 6 H O > 6 12 6 2 2 2 > >As I've said before, the Water can be split into Oxygen and Hydrogen but >what about the CO2? We must continuosly dump it into the exhaust, or >otherwise get rid of it. But then i was thinking about the following >equation in a book I had read. > > 900c >24 H + 6 CO = 6 CH + 12 H O > 2 2 4 2 > >The products of both electrolysis reactions is: 18 H2 + 9 O2. So we >must supply 6 H2 for each molecule of sugar. > > >Now This assumes that we have a lot of heat, but that's true of all the >designs I've seen so far. (except FTL of course) The methane is then >used in further synthetic reations to make the various chemicals we >might need, or it can be dumped into the exhaust stream to increase the >mass flow in the thrust. > >If our hydroponics are supplemented by stored food supplies, Then a >bigger problem might be Oxygen retention, rather than lack of Oxygen. > >-- >Kevin "Tex" Houston I beleave all the oxegen we breath gets converted to water by matabolism. If we electrolysize the water we produce, and burn the H2 + CO2 we should be in great shap. (I read this recently but forgot where.) Kelly From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 19 19:35 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1342" "Thu" "19" "June" "1997" "20:35:12" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "27" "starship-design: FTL drive designs" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA04791 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:35:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA04781 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:35:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp9.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp15.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.87]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA16577 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:35:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33A9FA70.7B96@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1341 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: FTL drive designs Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 20:35:12 -0700 In reply to Kelly Starks message: My other designs are even sketchier, but since you asked, I'll post them. My first idea involves using magnetic fields to warp or distort space. While promising (there are groups who have accomplished this on a small scale) it is as yet unproven in objects with masses of over 10 tons. I could post designs. I am currently constructing a device of this nature. (An advantage of youth: we don't give up easily.) Another idea, perhaps the most promising aside from my earlier design, is forgetting FTL completely. If you have to travel say 280 light years, at light speed this will take 280 years. But if you have an object that can twist and distort space into a burrito like shape, you can travel there in a few minutes, without ever exceeding the speed of light. What can do this? A black hole. Where do we get one? Hmmmm... We don't. Black holes are too large anyways. Aha! I have an idea! Make your own! Sort of. But instead of having a super-dense black hole, just warp space using super-intense electromagnetic fields and negative energy. A design like this could be the size of a school bus, and weigh only a few thousand tons. As to my earlier design, its weight would be about 5000000 tons. Heavy, but possible. Kyle Mcallister. P.S.: This is serious stuff. And the underlying physics is known. From owner-starship-design Fri Jun 20 00:11 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1508" "Fri" "20" "June" "1997" "00:12:35" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "32" "starship-design: FTL drive designs" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA02422 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:11:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA02406 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:11:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (cisco-ts7-line15.uoregon.edu [128.223.150.62]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA00595 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:10:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) id AAA29482; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:12:35 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706200712.AAA29482@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <33A9FA70.7B96@sunherald.infi.net> References: <33A9FA70.7B96@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.32 under 19.15p6 XEmacs Lucid Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1507 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: FTL drive designs Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:12:35 -0700 kyle writes: > Another idea, perhaps the most promising aside from my earlier > design, is forgetting FTL completely. Oh, phew, I was hoping you'd get to that eventually :-) > If you have to travel say 280 light years, at light speed this will > take 280 years. Well, that's the funny thing about relativity. If something travels 280 light years from Earth, it can't get there any sooner than after 280 years of Earth time. BUT, relativity says that it can be achieved in arbitrarily short amounts of ship time, due to the effect commonly known as "time dilation", as long as you have enough energy to accelerate and decelerate the ship to velocities as close to c as desired. The less time you want the passengers on the ship to experience, the faster you accelerate the ship. Clearly this has limits based on the amount of acceleration the occupants of the ship are capable of enduring and the amount of energy you have available, but having it take one year of ship time is completely physically possible. As an example, if (big if) you are able to build a ship that can accelerate at one g for 40 years continuously, it could cross the Milky Way in those 40 years of ship time, but 100,000 years of Earth time. Relativity doesn't rule out the possibility of getting anywhere in the universe in a human lifetime, although a human might have to be protected from hundreds or thousands of gs of acceleration to make the longer trips. Read _Spacetime Physics_ and you'll get the full details. From owner-starship-design Fri Jun 20 08:43 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["752" "Fri" "20" "June" "1997" "09:38:11" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "22" "Re: starship-design: FTL drive designs" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA12559 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 08:43:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA11865 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 08:39:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp11.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp11.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.83]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA11157 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 11:38:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33AAB1AA.3C81@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <33A9FA70.7B96@sunherald.infi.net> <199706200712.AAA29482@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 751 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL drive designs Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 09:38:11 -0700 Steve VanDevender wrote: > > kyle writes: > > Another idea, perhaps the most promising aside from my earlier > > design, is forgetting FTL completely. > > Oh, phew, I was hoping you'd get to that eventually :-) > Ah, but if you go on to read the rest of my idea, warping space to make travel at sublight speed to destinations possible within minutes ship-time AND earth-time, you'd see that travel to the stars as viewed by earth time could be just a few minutes. (or hours, or days, or however fast you wanted to go (up to c)). And belive me: I can give you a very close estimate as to the size, internal workings, mass, basic theory, etc. of this. Oh by the way, equations. I have equations to back up my claims. Want them? Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Fri Jun 20 13:11 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["350" "Fri" "20" "June" "1997" "14:10:57" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "10" "starship-design: Avatar encounter" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA15228 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:11:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA15213 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:11:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp11.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp11.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.83]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA25582; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 16:10:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33AAF1E1.11F1@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 349 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, lparker@cacaphony.net Subject: starship-design: Avatar encounter Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:10:57 -0700 In Re of L. Parker's avatar proposal: You mentioned contact with Type 0 and Type I civilizations on planets of other star system. What do we do if we encounter a Type II or higher civilization's colony? What about encountering one of their avatar probes? I know these are unlikely right now, but we must explore every possibility. Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Fri Jun 20 13:34 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2477" "Fri" "20" "June" "1997" "13:35:40" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "58" "Re: starship-design: FTL drive designs" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA23180 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:34:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA23170 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:34:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [198.68.17.19]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA09450; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:33:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) id NAA31297; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:35:40 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706202035.NAA31297@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <33AAB1AA.3C81@sunherald.infi.net> References: <33A9FA70.7B96@sunherald.infi.net> <199706200712.AAA29482@tzadkiel.efn.org> <33AAB1AA.3C81@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.32 under 19.15p6 XEmacs Lucid Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 2476 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: kyle Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FTL drive designs Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:35:40 -0700 kyle writes: > Steve VanDevender wrote: > > > > kyle writes: > > > Another idea, perhaps the most promising aside from my earlier > > > design, is forgetting FTL completely. > > > > Oh, phew, I was hoping you'd get to that eventually :-) > > Ah, but if you go on to read the rest of my idea, warping space to make > travel at sublight speed to destinations possible within minutes > ship-time AND earth-time, you'd see that travel to the stars as viewed > by earth time could be just a few minutes. (or hours, or days, or > however fast you wanted to go (up to c)). > > And belive me: I can give you a very close estimate as to the size, > internal workings, mass, basic theory, etc. of this. > > Oh by the way, equations. I have equations to back up my claims. Want > them? Sure, as my understanding is that in order to "warp space" in the way you want, quite exorbitant amounts of energy would be required, not to mention that people would notice for hundreds of light-years around since this "warp" would produce spectacular distortions of space and probably quite impressive gravity waves. I have equations to back up my claim, too: t = 2 * c/a * acosh((a*d/(2*c^2)) + 1) t = ship time d = trip distance a = acceleration c = speed of light This equation describes the ship time needed to travel a distance 'd' (as measured by Earth observers) assuming a trip profile of constant acceleration 'a' (as measured by the ship) to d/2, then turnaround and constant deceleration 'a' until the destination is reached. If you increase 'a' then you decrease 't'. In relativity there is no theoretical upper bound on 'a', so 't' can be made arbitrarily small. Of course, your ship or passengers may not survive high values of 'a'. A specific example: You want to travel from one side of the galaxy to the other, about 100,000 lyr, at a comfortable ship acceleration of 1 g. Plug those values in for 'd' and 'a' and you get a total trip time of 22.37 years, as experienced by the passengers on the ship. Of course, it does take a little over 100,000 years of time as measured by the inhabitants of their home planet, so if the passengers visit briefly and then return they way they came, they're 44.8 years older and their home planet is 200,000 years older. In essence, you don't need fancy hypothetical "space warps" to get to distant stars in human lifetimes, because going fast enough makes space appear to contract in the direction of motion. From owner-starship-design Fri Jun 20 14:24 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["707" "Fri" "20" "June" "1997" "15:23:53" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "18" "starship-design: How much does this rig weigh?" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA10497 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:23:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA10483 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:23:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp11.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp3.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.75]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA27898; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 17:23:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33AB02F8.262@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 706 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, kellySt@aol.com Subject: starship-design: How much does this rig weigh? Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 15:23:53 -0700 Greetings: In response to Kelly Starks' question of the drives size: Well, it doesn't have to be that massive, because the more negative gravitation you apply, the greater your fall into your gravity well up ahead. So you don't need a moon sized object tied to the front of your starship. Just alot of power to crank up your ZPQF generators at the rear to high negative gravity generation. The higher you fall, the better. (assuming you don't hit something on the way down. Splat.) An estimate of the size: 5,000,000 tons. Ball park, but it'll do. Again, this depends on the size of the ship, and what you build the ZPQF generation plates out of. Copper? Gold? Iron? Up to the builder. Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Sat Jun 21 12:12 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3205" "Sat" "21" "June" "1997" "14:10:09" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "78" "starship-design: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Stars_within_16_light_years_of_the_Sun=09=09=09?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?=09=09=09?=" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA29935 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 12:12:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA29922 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 12:12:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p10.gnt.com (x2p10.gnt.com [204.49.68.215]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA31722 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 14:12:25 -0500 Received: by x2p10.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC7E4D.2308EBA0@x2p10.gnt.com>; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 14:12:22 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC7E4D.2308EBA0@x2p10.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id MAA29925 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Length: 3204 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Stars_within_16_light_years_of_the_Sun=09=09=09?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?=09=09=09?= Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 14:10:09 -0500 This is a little chart I found on the Web that I thought everyone might be interested in. All of these stars are within reasonable range for a mission based on current technology such as Daedelus, Orion, Explorer or Light Sail type vehicles. I have tried to reformat it from HTML to text. I hope the column widths are right. If anyone would prefer HTML or a link to the original site let me know. BTW, in case anyone is curious, there are 58 stars on this list, at least eleven of which are close to our own Sol in characteristics, including Tau Ceti. Stars within 16 light years of the Sun NAME DISTANCE SPECTRAL APPARENT VISUAL (in parsecs ) TYPE MAGNITUDE MAGNITUDE Sun N/A G2 V -26.72 4.85 Proxima Centauri 1.3 M6 V 11.05 15.49 Alpha Centauri A 1.33 G2 V -0.01 4.37 Alpha Centauri B 1.83 K1 V 1.33 5.71 Barnard's Star 1.83 M4 V 9.54 13.22 Wolf 359 2.28 M6 V 13.53 16.65 BD + 36°2147 2.52 M2 V 7.5 10.5 L-726-8 A 2.58 M6 V 12.52 15.46 L-726-8 B 2.58 M6 V 13.02 15.96 Sirius A 2.65 A1 V -1.46 1.42 Sirius B 2.65 White Dwarf 8.3 11.2 Ross 154 2.9 M4 V 10.45 13.14 Ross 248 3.18 M5 V 12.29 14.78 Epsilon Eridani 3.3 K2 V 3.73 6.14 Ross 128 3.36 M4 V 11.1 13.47 61 Cygni A 3.4 K4 V 5.22 7.56 61 Cygni B 3.4 K5 V 6.03 8.37 Epsilon Indi 3.44 K3 V 4.68 7 BD + 43°44 A 3.45 M1 V 8.08 10.39 BD + 43°44 B 3.45 M4 V 11.06 13.37 L786-6 3.45 Uncertain 12.18 14.49 Procyon A 3.51 F5 V-IV 0.37 2.64 Procyon B 3.51 White Dwarf 10.7 13 BD + 59°1915 A 3.55 M3 V 8.9 11.15 BD + 59°1915 B 3.55 M4 V 9.69 11.94 CD - 36°15693 3.58 M1 V 7.35 9.58 G51-15 3.6 M7 V 14.81 17.03 Tau Ceti 3.61 G8 V 3.5 5.72 BD + 5°1668 3.76 M4 V 9.82 11.94 L725-32 3.83 M4 V 12.04 14.12 CD - 39°14192 3.85 M6 V 6.66 8.74 Kapteyn's Star 3.91 MO V 8.84 10.88 Kruger 60 A 3.95 M3 V 9.85 11.87 Kruger 60 B 3.95 Uncertain 11.3 13.3 BD - 12°4253 4.05 M4 V 10.11 12.07 Ross 614 A 4.06 M4 V 11.1 13.12 Ross 614 B 4.06 Uncertain 14 16 van Maanen's Star 4.31 White Dwarf 12.37 14.2 Wolf 424 A 4.35 M5 V 13.16 14.97 Wolf 424 B 4.35 Uncertain 13.4 15.2 CD - 37°15492 4.44 M2 V 8.56 10.32 L1159-16 4.46 M4 V 12.26 14.01 LP731-58 4.57 Uncertain 15.6 17.3 CD - 46°11540 4.63 M3 V 9.37 11.04 G158 - 27 4.67 M5 13.99 15.61 CD - 49°13515 4.67 M2 V 8.67 10.32 CD - 44°11909 4.69 M4 V 10.96 12.6 BD + 68°946 4.69 M3 V 9.15 10.79 G208 - 44 A 4.74 Uncertain 13.41 15.03 G208 - 44 B 4.74 M5 13.99 15.61 BD - 15°6290 4.78 M4 V 10.17 11.77 Omicron2 Eridani A 4.83 K1 V 4.43 6.01 Omicron2 Eridani B 4.83 White Dwarf 9.52 11.1 Omicron2 Eridani C 4.83 M4 V 11.17 12.75 BD + 20°22465 4.85 M3 V 9.43 11 L145-141 4.85 White Dwarf 11.5 13.07 70 Ophiuchi A 4.93 KO V 4.22 5.76 70 Ophiuchi B 4.93 K4 V 6 7.54 BD + 43°4305 5 M5 10.2 11.7 Lee Parker Long experience has taught me not to believe in the limitations indicated by purely theoretical considerations. These - as we well know - are based on insufficient knowledge of all the relevant factors." Guglielmo Marconi From owner-starship-design Sat Jun 21 13:35 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["880" "Sat" "21" "June" "1997" "14:35:15" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "26" "Re: starship-design: This and that." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA16929 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 13:35:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA16917 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 13:35:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp5.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp5.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.77]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA12843; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 16:35:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33AC4912.1B14@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <33A74E80.7A15@sunherald.infi.net> <199706180209.TAA21452@tzadkiel.efn.org> <33A7731F.D51@maroon.tc.umn.edu> <199706182312.QAA24419@tzadkiel.efn.org> <33A8A9EF.387B@sunherald.infi.net> <199706190324.UAA25045@tzadkiel.efn.org> <33A9A7B1.6978@sunherald.infi.net> <199706192056.NAA28109@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 879 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, stevev@efn.org Subject: Re: starship-design: This and that. Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 14:35:15 -0700 Steve VanDevender wrote: > > kyle writes: > > [ quote of an entire large messsage snipped] > > I think it's really unnecessary to quote an entire long message when > your reply is so short. > > > Here's a web page: > > > > http://mist.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw75.html > > Already read it, after it was mentioned by Ken Wharton. Besides not > being a cut-and-dried experiment, it also indicates that _if_ it can be > scaled up to produce FTL communication, it will need a physical "pipe" > of waveguides and amplifiers to work at all. Perhaps useful for doing > land-based FTL communication (again, _if_ it works when scaled up!) but > by no means a starship drive. It will be interesting to see what comes > of it. Imagine how useful this could be to the computer industry! FTL processing systems, perhaps? Talk about the next generation pentium. Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Sat Jun 21 15:51 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["464" "Sat" "21" "June" "1997" "16:51:23" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "13" "starship-design: Various things" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA13152 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 15:51:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA13121 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 15:51:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp5.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp5.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.77]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA18449 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 18:51:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33AC68FA.71E5@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 463 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Various things Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 16:51:23 -0700 Greetings all: I read the list of stars sent by Lee Parker, and have some comments. Some stars, mostly the K-class stars, are too young to have much in their systems. Others, like procyon, are dying stars. Sirius is probably not a good destination, because it won't last for long, and its too young, not to mention the tidal pull exerted by the white dwarf companion. Now that atmospheric data I requested: anything? Pressure, composition? This is important. From owner-starship-design Sat Jun 21 20:23 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["684" "Sat" "21" "June" "1997" "20:24:05" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "16" "starship-design: Various things" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA29852 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 20:23:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA29842 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 20:23:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (cisco-ts11-line10.uoregon.edu [128.223.150.125]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA01797 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 20:22:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) id UAA02853; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 20:24:05 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706220324.UAA02853@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <33AC68FA.71E5@sunherald.infi.net> References: <33AC68FA.71E5@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.32 under 19.15p6 XEmacs Lucid Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 683 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Various things Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 20:24:05 -0700 kyle writes: > Some stars, mostly the K-class stars, are too young to have much in > their systems. Actually, most K stars are quite old. Main-sequence stars that live long enough to have planets that could sustain life typically start out as F or G stars, becoming K, then M stars late in their lives. Many smaller stars are M stars for nearly all of their lives. In order of decreasing temperature, spectral classes go: O, B, A, F, G, K, M. O, B, and A stars are considered too hot to form planets, because their radiation would dissapate a protoplanetary disk, and are also short-lived, so any planets that might form will get toasted by the star's usually violent death. From owner-starship-design Sat Jun 21 21:08 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1213" "Sat" "21" "June" "1997" "22:07:47" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "24" "starship-design: Uh Oh, a problem" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA06683 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 21:08:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA06674 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 21:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp5.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp3.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.75]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA20813; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 00:08:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33ACB322.5FDB@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1212 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: kellySt@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu Subject: starship-design: Uh Oh, a problem Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 22:07:47 -0700 Hello Starship designers, Kevin, Kelly: I went back and did some calculations, and found that my specifications on the NEGATIVE gravity part of the FTL drive were _more or less_ correct. But I found a problem: You need an equal positive gravity source at the front. How do you make positive gravity? With mass. How much mass at the front do you need to accelerate at 1 g? ONE EARTH! SHAPED according to the necessary warp geometry. Even if you attached phobos to the front, shaped it and flew the ship, it would take 250 years round trip to tau ceti and back. You would have so little acceleration that you would never get near lightspeed. Wouldn't it be nice if you could move yourself at superluminal speed with just negative gravity generation? But it could be dangerous. What if you hit something? What if your ZPQF generator got out of whack? Any ideas on these or moving negative mass around? Then what happens when you touch negative mass? Tidal distortions, and everthing else starts up when you throw the switch, and all hell breaks loose. Now you have no ship, no crew, no money, no mission. I don't like that at all. Any ideas are welcome. Kyle Mcallister "It ain't over till its over" -Yogi Berra From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 22 06:46 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["561" "Sun" "22" "June" "1997" "15:44:36" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "16" "Re: starship-design: Stars_within_16_light_years_of_the_Sun" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA05837 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 06:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA05826 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 06:46:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA27407; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 15:44:36 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706221344.PAA27407@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 560 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: Stars_within_16_light_years_of_the_Sun Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 15:44:36 +0200 (MET DST) > From: "L. Parker" > > Stars within 16 light years of the Sun > NAME DISTANCE SPECTRAL APPARENT VISUAL > (in parsecs) TYPE MAGNITUDE MAGNITUDE > Sun N/A G2 V -26.72 4.85 > Proxima Centauri 1.3 M6 V 11.05 15.49 > Alpha Centauri A 1.33 G2 V -0.01 4.37 > Alpha Centauri B 1.83 K1 V 1.33 5.71 > There is most probably an error - the distance to A and B is nearly the same, certainly much less than between any of them and Proxima, so there should probably be 1.33 parcecs for both. -- Zenon From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 22 06:55 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1462" "Sun" "22" "June" "1997" "15:53:49" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "34" "Re: starship-design: Uh Oh, a problem" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA07051 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 06:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA07038 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 06:55:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA27418; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 15:53:49 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706221353.PAA27418@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1461 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: Uh Oh, a problem Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 15:53:49 +0200 (MET DST) > From: kyle > > I went back and did some calculations, and found that my specifications > on the NEGATIVE gravity part of the FTL drive were _more or less_ > correct. But I found a problem: You need an equal positive gravity > source at the front. How do you make positive gravity? With mass. How > much mass at the front do you need to accelerate at 1 g? ONE EARTH! > Not exactly. It can be much smaller, only more condensed (e.g., neutronium). However, see below... > SHAPED according to the necessary warp geometry. Even if you attached > phobos to the front, shaped it and flew the ship, it would take 250 > years round trip to tau ceti and back. You would have so little > acceleration that you would never get near lightspeed. Wouldn't it be > nice if you could move yourself at superluminal speed with just negative > gravity generation? But it could be dangerous. What if you hit > something? What if your ZPQF generator got out of whack? Any ideas on > these or moving negative mass around? Then what happens when you touch > negative mass? Tidal distortions, and everthing else starts up when you > throw the switch, and all hell breaks loose. Now you have no ship, no > crew, no money, no mission. > Exactly. Ditto with the "positive" condenced mass above. > I don't like that at all. Any ideas are > welcome. > See "Dragon's Egg" by R.L. Forward for interesting ideas on compensating tidal gravity effects. -- Zenon From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 22 13:30 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1117" "Sun" "22" "June" "1997" "14:58:54" "-0500" "\"Kevin \\\"Tex\\\" Houston\"" "hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu" nil "32" "Re: starship-design: This and that." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA18388 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 13:30:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mhub1.tc.umn.edu (0@mhub1.tc.umn.edu [128.101.131.51]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA18363 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 13:30:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maroon.tc.umn.edu by mhub1.tc.umn.edu; Sun, 22 Jun 97 15:30:17 -0500 Received: from pub-22-c-179.dialup.umn.edu by maroon.tc.umn.edu; Sun, 22 Jun 97 15:30:16 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33AD83FE.4380@maroon.tc.umn.edu> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <33A74E80.7A15@sunherald.infi.net> <199706180209.TAA21452@tzadkiel.efn.org> <33A7731F.D51@maroon.tc.umn.edu> <199706182312.QAA24419@tzadkiel.efn.org> <33A8A9EF.387B@sunherald.infi.net> <199706190324.UAA25045@tzadkiel.efn.org> <33A9A7B1.6978@sunherald.infi.net> <199706192056.NAA28109@tzadkiel.efn.org> <33AC4912.1B14@sunherald.infi.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kevin \"Tex\" Houston" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1116 From: "Kevin \"Tex\" Houston" Sender: owner-starship-design To: Starship design group Subject: Re: starship-design: This and that. Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 14:58:54 -0500 kyle wrote: > > Steve VanDevender wrote: > > > > kyle writes: > > > > > Here's a web page: > > > > > > http://mist.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw75.html > > > > Already read it, after it was mentioned by Ken Wharton. Besides not > > being a cut-and-dried experiment, it also indicates that _if_ it can be > > scaled up to produce FTL communication, it will need a physical "pipe" > > of waveguides and amplifiers to work at all. Perhaps useful for doing > > land-based FTL communication (again, _if_ it works when scaled up!) but > > by no means a starship drive. It will be interesting to see what comes > > of it. Seems you are out of phase I "That's impossible!", and are now into phase II, "It may be possible, but it's not practical". }8-) Yes, it's nowhere near a FTL drive, but it seems to me that if you could expel FTL photons, you'd have a nice FTL drive. -- Kevin "Tex" Houston http://umn.edu/~hous0042/index.html Webmaster http://www.urly-bird.com/index.html "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." A. Einstein From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 22 13:30 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5102" "Sun" "22" "June" "1997" "15:15:51" "-0500" "\"Kevin \\\"Tex\\\" Houston\"" "hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu" nil "135" "Re: starship-design: This and that." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA18410 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 13:30:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mhub2.tc.umn.edu (0@mhub2.tc.umn.edu [128.101.131.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA18396 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 13:30:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maroon.tc.umn.edu by mhub2.tc.umn.edu; Sun, 22 Jun 97 15:30:21 -0500 Received: from pub-22-c-179.dialup.umn.edu by maroon.tc.umn.edu; Sun, 22 Jun 97 15:30:19 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33AD87F7.366A@maroon.tc.umn.edu> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <970619222124_644319521@emout05.mail.aol.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kevin \"Tex\" Houston" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 5101 From: "Kevin \"Tex\" Houston" Sender: owner-starship-design To: Starship design group Subject: Re: starship-design: This and that. Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 15:15:51 -0500 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 6/18/97 5:51:16 PM, hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu wrote: > > >Questions: > > > >To: Steve VanDevender > >Re: Traveling Faster Than Light. > > > >In message dated Sun Jun 15 1997 you write: (reformated) > > > >> More importantly, relativistic physics, as we now know it, > >> does not in any way prohibit a material object from traveling > >> at any speed less than C, but does prevent anything from traveling > >> faster than that. > > > >It is my understanding (limited though it may be) that Einstein's > >equations do not prohibit travel FASTER THAN the speed of light, > >but only prohibit travel AT the speed of light. Is this not correct? > > Thats what I remember. Of course that transition past C might be a problem. > Its not a theoretical imposibility. The Transition past the C barrier might not be so dificult. for a single particle, all you'd need to do is get it to make a small tunneling jump. for example, 1) Accelerate to near light speed (99.99.... %) as close as you can. 2) make a quatum jump of only a very short distance which happens in zero time. > Kevin writes again. > >To: Steve VanDevender > >Re: Talking Faster Than Light. > > > >In message dated Sun Jun 15 1997 you write: (reformated) > > > >> The few FTL effects that are thought to exist in particle > >> physics don't translate to macroscopic objects, and even > >> when postulated don't transmit information or mass faster > >> than light. > > > >Again, my limited understanding tells me that communication via > >particle/wave duality phenomenom is possible. Via the following method: > > > >1) Generate a single photon every 1/100 second. > >2) use a beam spiltter to give the photon a 50% chance of: > > 3a) going to your friend (or enemy) at Tau Ceti. > > -or- > > 3b) into a trap for 12 years (perfect reflectors, whatever) > > > >Once the other photon has had enough time to arrive at Tau Ceti, send > >your 12 yr old photon into a double slit experiment. Your friend (or > >enemy) does the same. You both observe the pretty, pretty, interference > >pattern. > > > >Now comes the tricky part: > >You turn on a particle detector and are able to decide exactly which > >slit the photon went through. of course, your interference pattern > >disappears, but > > > >SO DOES THE OTHER GUY'S (and at the same time too) > > > >After sending your morse code message, you turn off your particle > >detector and stare at the interference pattern again (pretty... 8) > > > >Suddenly the pattern begins disappearing in an orderly fashion as your > >friend (who is now your enemy for ruining your interference pattern) > >transmits his message: > > > >>>Hey, thanks a lot, JERK! you riuned my interference pattern :( << > > > >Aside from the obvious technical problems of observing the same photon > >at the same time (whatever "same time" might mean)(and BTW I can finagle > >around that one too if you insist.) This method should allow FTL > >communication. and temporal communication as well. Causality be > >damned. > > Sounds familure? > > Oh, what do you project your interstellar interfearence pattern on? Any solid object. The reason this works is that when a single photon (behaving as a wave) encounters two closely spaced slits, it goes through both of them, and this is what produces the interference pattern. When a photon (behaving as a particle) encounters two closely spaced slits, it must choose one or the other, and the pattern disappears. This effect (interference breakdown at a distance) has been demonstrated. > Kevin writes again. > >To: all > >Re: support of Kyle > > > >First let me (mis)quote Clark's first law: > > > >"When an intelligent but young scientist says that something is > >possible, he is almost certainly correct. When an elderly but > >distinguished scientist says something is impossible, he is almost > >certainly incorrect." > > Well its not always true. ;) No, it's not always true, but it's true often enough to make me want to listen fully to the younger guy before making any judgement. See my .sig line for an idea of what happens to those who say "it can't be done". BTW, Einstein himself was nailed by this very phenomenom when he said "God does not play dice with the universe." We now suspect, that not only does God play dice, but they are loaded as well. > Kevin writes again. > > > >You may say: "But how can one generate such a tremendous negative energy > >(or gravitation) gradient?" > > > >This is a valid question, but we might as easily ask Kelly how he > >intends (exactly now) to initiate a sustained fusion burn in his > >explorer class engines. ---- > > Would you prefer pulsed? Hey, no problem, I live in the flight path of the airport, I can handle any amount of noise you care to generate ;) -- Kevin "Tex" Houston http://umn.edu/~hous0042/index.html Webmaster http://www.urly-bird.com/index.html "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." A. Einstein From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 22 18:42 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1914" "Sun" "22" "June" "1997" "18:42:48" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "35" "Re: starship-design: This and that." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA00004 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 18:41:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA29985 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 18:41:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (cisco-ts10-line2.uoregon.edu [128.223.150.100]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA28356 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 18:40:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) id SAA05925; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 18:42:48 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706230142.SAA05925@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <33AD83FE.4380@maroon.tc.umn.edu> References: <33A74E80.7A15@sunherald.infi.net> <199706180209.TAA21452@tzadkiel.efn.org> <33A7731F.D51@maroon.tc.umn.edu> <199706182312.QAA24419@tzadkiel.efn.org> <33A8A9EF.387B@sunherald.infi.net> <199706190324.UAA25045@tzadkiel.efn.org> <33A9A7B1.6978@sunherald.infi.net> <199706192056.NAA28109@tzadkiel.efn.org> <33AC4912.1B14@sunherald.infi.net> <33AD83FE.4380@maroon.tc.umn.edu> X-Mailer: VM 6.32 under 19.15p6 XEmacs Lucid Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1913 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: This and that. Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 18:42:48 -0700 "Kevin \"Tex\" Houston" writes: > Steve VanDevender wrote: > > Already read it, after it was mentioned by Ken Wharton. Besides not > > being a cut-and-dried experiment, it also indicates that _if_ it can be > > scaled up to produce FTL communication, it will need a physical "pipe" > > of waveguides and amplifiers to work at all. Perhaps useful for doing > > land-based FTL communication (again, _if_ it works when scaled up!) but > > by no means a starship drive. It will be interesting to see what comes > > of it. > > Seems you are out of phase I "That's impossible!", and are now into > phase II, "It may be possible, but it's not practical". }8-) Given your comment, I'm afraid you're in phase 0, "It's possible because I don't know enough to understand why it wouldn't work." In any case, I seem to have to keep repeating my point for the people who aren't paying attention: I am saying that we don't know how to achieve FTL motion of mass now, and we don't have a proven theoretical framework that allows for it. That is much different from saying "FTL will never be possible", although I think that's a possibility we may eventually have to accept. > Yes, it's nowhere near a FTL drive, but it seems to me that if you could > expel FTL photons, you'd have a nice FTL drive. First, the FTL photons postulated in these experiments are only FTL for so long as they're in the waveguide. Second, expelling FTL particles doesn't make an FTL reaction drive. It may make an extremely efficient reaction drive, because you can get a better energy/momentum ratio than you could get with photons. It's easy enough to extend relativistic kinematics to cover FTL particles (if you're willing to allow those); FTL particles are merely those that have more momentum than energy, and imaginary mass. However, the extension still does not allow normal subluminal matter to reach or exceed c. From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 22 18:53 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1324" "Sun" "22" "June" "1997" "18:53:46" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "30" "Re: starship-design: This and that." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA02361 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 18:53:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA02348 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 18:53:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (cisco-ts10-line2.uoregon.edu [128.223.150.100]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA29254 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 18:52:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) id SAA05954; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 18:53:46 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706230153.SAA05954@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <33AD87F7.366A@maroon.tc.umn.edu> References: <970619222124_644319521@emout05.mail.aol.com> <33AD87F7.366A@maroon.tc.umn.edu> X-Mailer: VM 6.32 under 19.15p6 XEmacs Lucid Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1323 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: Starship design group Subject: Re: starship-design: This and that. Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 18:53:46 -0700 "Kevin \"Tex\" Houston" writes: > The Transition past the C barrier might not be so dificult. for a > single particle, all you'd need to do is get it to make a small > tunneling jump. for example, > > 1) Accelerate to near light speed (99.99.... %) as close as you can. > 2) make a quatum jump of only a very short distance which happens in > zero time. This seems to be a common fallacy. Quantum tunnelling allows particles to pass through a potential barrier. but such tunnelling doesn't involve any fundamental change in the properties of the particle. If the particle's wave function has an observable probability of appearing outside the potential barrier, then that probability can be observed. The asymptotically rising energy and momentum of a particle as it approaches c isn't anything like a quantum potential barrier. Furthermore, to go from traveling just below c to just above c requires a fundamental change in the properties of mass. If you've also read the quantum mechanical treatment of tachyons (posted in the old LIT site, and taken from the sci.physics FAQ) then attempting a QM treatment of tachyons either results in tachyons that travel FTL but which can't be localized, or in particles that can be localized which still travel slower than c. Either way they're not useful for FTL. From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 22 19:24 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["748" "Sun" "22" "June" "1997" "22:22:33" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "22" "Re: starship-design: Avatar encounter" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA08707 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:24:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA08684 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:23:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id WAA04209; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 22:22:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970622222233_1858409403@emout07.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 747 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: stk@sunherald.infi.net, owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, lparker@cacaphony.net Subject: Re: starship-design: Avatar encounter Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 22:22:33 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/20/97 8:03:15 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net (kyle) wrote: >In Re of L. Parker's avatar proposal: > >You mentioned contact with Type 0 and Type I civilizations on planets of >other star system. What do we do if we encounter a Type II or higher >civilization's colony? What about encountering one of their avatar >probes? I know these are unlikely right now, but we must explore every >possibility. > >Kyle Mcallister You hope like hell they're friendly and try to stay out of their way. Odds are you won't thou. Remember were talking about traveling to the near stellar nieghborhood. If they are that close they can sence Earths civilization from its EM emisions. So they would have probably diverted to Sol first. Kelly From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 22 19:28 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1405" "Sun" "22" "June" "1997" "22:27:54" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "33" "Re: starship-design: This and that." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA09631 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:28:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout11.mail.aol.com (emout11.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.26]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA09581 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:28:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout11.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id WAA25657; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 22:27:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970622222753_-627736897@emout11.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1404 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: stevev@efn.org, owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: This and that. Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 22:27:54 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/20/97 8:05:41 PM, stevev@efn.org (Steve VanDevender) wrote: >kyle writes: > > > The problem is that if you go faster than light Einstein's equations > > > start producing complex numbers (that is, numbers with both real and > > > imaginary components) as results. Nobody knows how to interpret the > > > imaginary components in a physical context, nor has any evidence of > > > physical phenomena with these quantities been seen. > > > > Maybe because we haven't done it yet? > >If FTL is possible, then there's a good chance that it can happen as >part of some natural phenomenon, and that would produce pretty >noticeable effects. Not observing FTL in the natural universe is a >pretty good indication that it can't be _too_ easy. Nevertheless, any >FTL method will have to be reconciled with relativity and quantum >mechanics, both of which have been extensively tested by experiment and >for which there aren't any widely-acknowledged exceptions. I don't. Nuclear reactors turned out to be pretty simply when developed. Yet induced mater conversion wasn't exactly thought of as an obvious phenomenon in nature before we figured it out. Transister radios aer a lot easier then a lighting storm would suggest also. And space launchers. Super conductors. etc.. Their are lots of things our science lets us to routinely that looked pretty impossible before. Kelly From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 22 19:44 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2000" "Sun" "22" "June" "1997" "22:44:15" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "45" "Re: starship-design: Re: FTL Drive designs" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA12834 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:44:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout16.mail.aol.com (emout16.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.42]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA12824 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:44:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout16.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id WAA11717; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 22:44:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970622224413_-529205843@emout16.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1999 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: stevev@efn.org, owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: FTL Drive designs Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 22:44:15 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/20/97 10:23:36 PM, stevev@efn.org (Steve VanDevender) wrote: >Let's think about Kyle's figure of 10^28 W/cm^3. Viewed as a rate of of >total mass-to-energy conversion, that's 1.1 * 10^11 kg/s * c^2 per cm^3. >Very roughly that is like continuously shoving neutronium and >antineutronium in a blender. For reference, the total solar flux is >about 3.6 * 10^26 W; your energy flux is literally like a nova per cubic >centimeter per second. > >I have only two things to say about that figure. > >1. If that kind of energy production density was possible, we could >send entire planets on high-acceleration relativistic trips around the >universe using tiny reactors. > >2. I don't think it's feasible to use this for a man-rated spacecraft. >No human could stand to be near that kind of flux without shielding >that's at least as fanciful as the reactor that produces it. Ah, don't wory about man rating the ship. Unless you have 100% energy efficency the waste heat or rad leakage would fry out the star system! Thou FTL would be far more usefull then planet sized STL travel. ;) >I have serious reservations about "zero-point energy" being useful. My >primary concern is that extracting such energy from the vacuum has to be >disruptive -- you're lowering the ground state of the vacuum in a >region, and that's got to produce some kind of effect as that >disturbance propagates into the surrounding vacuum. And if you extract >that energy by making the vacuum effectively unstable, what risk do you >run of having that reaction be self-sustaining and uncontainable? For >all we know the Big Bang might have been someone's disastrous ZPE >experiment. This is really speculative. zero point energy is such an edgy concept we've got know idea if its possible, or if it would have side effects in macro space. (Ignoring the waste heat problem.) Who knows maybe you can duct the resulting power and waste back into the zero point flux and leave no effect. Kelly From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 22 20:07 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1520" "Sun" "22" "June" "1997" "23:06:47" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "34" "starship-design: Re: Uh Oh, a problem" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA16993 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 20:07:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout18.mail.aol.com (emout18.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.44]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA16979 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 20:07:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout18.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA23328; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 23:06:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970622230643_374575071@emout18.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1519 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: stk@sunherald.infi.net, KellySt@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Uh Oh, a problem Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 23:06:47 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/21/97 10:29:53 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net (kyle) wrote: >Hello Starship designers, Kevin, Kelly: > >I went back and did some calculations, and found that my specifications >on the NEGATIVE gravity part of the FTL drive were _more or less_ >correct. But I found a problem: You need an equal positive gravity >source at the front. How do you make positive gravity? With mass. How >much mass at the front do you need to accelerate at 1 g? ONE EARTH! >SHAPED according to the necessary warp geometry. Even if you attached >phobos to the front, shaped it and flew the ship, it would take 250 >years round trip to tau ceti and back. You would have so little >acceleration that you would never get near lightspeed. Wouldn't it be >nice if you could move yourself at superluminal speed with just negative >gravity generation? But it could be dangerous. What if you hit >something? What if your ZPQF generator got out of whack? Any ideas on >these or moving negative mass around? Then what happens when you touch >negative mass? Tidal distortions, and everthing else starts up when you >throw the switch, and all hell breaks loose. Now you have no ship, no >crew, no money, no mission. I don't like that at all. Any ideas are >welcome. > >Kyle Mcallister > >"It ain't over till its over" -Yogi Berra Thats a very serious opps their Kyle. ;) We all made them here. Can't see as I can see a solution to yours. Unless you can convert all that zero point energy into a virtual mass or something. Kelly From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 22 20:14 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1818" "Sun" "22" "June" "1997" "23:13:36" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "43" "Re: starship-design: Re: This and That." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA18730 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 20:14:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.95]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA18707 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 20:14:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA15836; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 23:13:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970622231330_-694845852@emout04.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1817 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: This and That. Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 23:13:36 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/21/97 2:11:13 AM, wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) wrote: >----Apart from all this brand-new, unproved theory, I personally don't >believe it's possible to construct a Pure Paradox. From first >principles, a pure paradox is a contradiction of itself, and (for me, >anyway) that in itself proves that paradoxes are impossible. Paradoxes generally arise in science when your missing a secoundary factor. For example time travel allows things like a grandfather paradox. However such a paradox would create a recursive ossilating pattern. One cycle granfather lives -> so you live. Which leads to pattern two where you kill grandfather before your born. So theirs noone born to kill grandfather. Logicly the two paterns could recursively repeat until a stable varient arises. I.E. the paradoxes are possible, but intrinsicly unstable and self correcting. Just a thought. Kelly >---If there >can't be paradoxes, there can't be time-travel, and therefore there >can't be FTL. The only possible way out (besides discounting free will) >is if there are an infinite number of possible universes: an idea I find >very disturbing. I'm not saying FTL's impossible, but there is a >certain intellectual coherence of the concept of reality: the concept >that once something "happens", nothing can change the fact that it did, >in fact, happen. FTL begins to unravel this whole concept of what >reality is, and my confidence in reality is why I'm very skeptical that >anything along those lines will ever be possible. > >And if it is, spacetravel will probably be the least of humanity's >concerns. > >I agree with your advice to Kyle; let's tap the ZPE and forget FTL. At >least I can philosophically handle the consequences of stealing energy >from a vacuum. > >Ken From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 22 20:14 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1446" "Sun" "22" "June" "1997" "23:13:54" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "42" "Re: starship-design: This and that." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA18783 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 20:14:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com (emout10.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.25]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA18769 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 20:14:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA06847; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 23:13:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970622231344_1012232421@emout10.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1445 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu, owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: This and that. Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 23:13:54 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/22/97 2:44:24 PM, hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Kevin "Tex" Houston) wrote: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> In a message dated 6/18/97 5:51:16 PM, hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu wrote: >> >> >Questions: >> > >> >To: Steve VanDevender >> >Re: Traveling Faster Than Light. >> > >> >In message dated Sun Jun 15 1997 you write: (reformated) >> > >> >> More importantly, relativistic physics, as we now know it, >> >> does not in any way prohibit a material object from traveling >> >> at any speed less than C, but does prevent anything from traveling >> >> faster than that. >> > >> >It is my understanding (limited though it may be) that Einstein's >> >equations do not prohibit travel FASTER THAN the speed of light, >> >but only prohibit travel AT the speed of light. Is this not correct? >> >> Thats what I remember. Of course that transition past C might be a problem. >> Its not a theoretical imposibility. > >The Transition past the C barrier might not be so dificult. for a >single particle, all you'd need to do is get it to make a small >tunneling jump. for example, > >1) Accelerate to near light speed (99.99.... %) as close as you can. >2) make a quatum jump of only a very short distance which happens in >zero time. True, but how the hell do you 'jump' a couple hundred thousand tons of starship? Get them all to jump independantly, but bond them somehow so they all come out in formation? Oh well. Kelly From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 23 11:06 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil] ["2363" "Mon" "23" "June" "1997" "20:03:48" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" "<199706231803.UAA28752@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>" "70" "RE: starship-design: Stars_within_16_light_years_of_the_Sun" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id LAA19932 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:05:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA19851 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:05:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id UAA28752; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 20:03:48 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706231803.UAA28752@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2362 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: RE: starship-design: Stars_within_16_light_years_of_the_Sun Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 20:03:48 +0200 (MET DST) > From lparker@cacaphony.net Mon Jun 23 02:29:40 1997 > > Zenon, > > No, it is quite correct. > > Lee Parker > > -----Original Message----- > From: Zenon Kulpa [SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl] > > > From: "L. Parker" > > > > Stars within 16 light years of the Sun > > NAME DISTANCE SPECTRAL APPARENT VISUAL > > (in parsecs) TYPE MAGNITUDE MAGNITUDE > > Sun N/A G2 V -26.72 4.85 > > Proxima Centauri 1.3 M6 V 11.05 15.49 > > Alpha Centauri A 1.33 G2 V -0.01 4.37 > > Alpha Centauri B 1.83 K1 V 1.33 5.71 > > > There is most probably an error - the distance to A and B > is nearly the same, certainly much less than between any of them > and Proxima, so there should probably be 1.33 parcecs for both. > > -- Zenon > Sorry, but this MUST be in error. Your data gives B farther away than A by 0.5 ps, that is 1.6 ly, and at the same distance as to Barnard. And both these are certainly not true. I am also including some data from some other sources for comparison below. Note also differences concerning spectral types and magnitudes between the sources. NAME DISTANCE SPECTRAL APPARENT VISUAL (ps/ly) TYPE MAGNITUDE MAGNITUDE L. Parker source: ----------------- Proxima Centauri 1.3 M6 V 11.05 15.49 Alpha Centauri A 1.33 G2 V -0.01 4.37 Alpha Centauri B 1.83 K1 V 1.33 5.71 Barnard's Star 1.83 M4 V 9.54 13.22 http://www.essex1.com/people/speer/stars.html: ---------------------------------------------- Proxima Centauri (1.29)/4.2 M5e 11.3 Alpha Centauri A (1.32)/4.3 G0 .33 Alpha Centauri B (1.32)/4.3 K5 1.70 Barnard's Star (1.83)/5.96 M5 9.5 http://monet.physik.unibas.ch/~schatzer/Alpha-Centauri.html: ------------------------------------------------------------ Proxima Centauri (1.29)/4.22 M5e Alpha Centauri A (1.33)/4.35 G2 Alpha Centauri B (1.33)/4.35 K1 Separation A/B (current): 23 AU = 0.00001 ps The units: ---------- AU = 149 598 770 km ly = 9.4543*10^12 km = 63197.7 AU = 0.3066 ps ps = 30.8361*10^12 km = 206125.7 AU = 3.2616 ly -- Zenon From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 23 11:23 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2673" "Mon" "23" "June" "1997" "11:23:15" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "62" "RE: starship-design: Stars_within_16_light_years_of_the_Sun" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id LAA28261 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:23:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id LAA28244; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:23:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706231823.LAA28244@darkwing.uoregon.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <199706231803.UAA28752@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> References: <199706231803.UAA28752@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> X-Mailer: VM 6.32 under 19.15p6 XEmacs Lucid Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 2672 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Stars_within_16_light_years_of_the_Sun Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:23:15 -0700 (PDT) Zenon Kulpa writes: > Sorry, but this MUST be in error. > Your data gives B farther away than A by 0.5 ps, that is 1.6 ly, > and at the same distance as to Barnard. > And both these are certainly not true. I'll have to agree with Zenon on this one. Alpha Centauri is a trinary system, with Proxima being distant from A/B; the apparent distance to A and B should be nearly identical. > I am also including some data from some other sources for comparison below. > Note also differences concerning spectral types and magnitudes > between the sources. Lee's chart is also mislabeled; substitute "absolute" for "visual" in the heading. The difference in spectral class is likely a difference in opinion. Spectral class is judged primarily by the appearance and relative strength of sets of spectral lines corresponding to different elements and compounds in their various ionization states; these can provide a good estimate of the surface temperature of the star, as well as the abundance of the elements involved. Several components of spectral class are rather subjective and may be interpreted differently by different astronomers, resulting in the different subclass numbers. The 'V' following the spectral type in Lee's chart is the luminosity class (most main sequence stars are class V; the classes are roman numerals). > NAME DISTANCE SPECTRAL APPARENT VISUAL > (ps/ly) TYPE MAGNITUDE MAGNITUDE > L. Parker source: > ----------------- > Proxima Centauri 1.3 M6 V 11.05 15.49 > Alpha Centauri A 1.33 G2 V -0.01 4.37 > Alpha Centauri B 1.83 K1 V 1.33 5.71 > Barnard's Star 1.83 M4 V 9.54 13.22 > > http://www.essex1.com/people/speer/stars.html: > ---------------------------------------------- > Proxima Centauri (1.29)/4.2 M5e 11.3 > Alpha Centauri A (1.32)/4.3 G0 .33 > Alpha Centauri B (1.32)/4.3 K5 1.70 > Barnard's Star (1.83)/5.96 M5 9.5 > > > http://monet.physik.unibas.ch/~schatzer/Alpha-Centauri.html: > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Proxima Centauri (1.29)/4.22 M5e > Alpha Centauri A (1.33)/4.35 G2 > Alpha Centauri B (1.33)/4.35 K1 > > Separation A/B (current): 23 AU = 0.00001 ps > > The units: > ---------- > AU = 149 598 770 km > ly = 9.4543*10^12 km = 63197.7 AU = 0.3066 ps > ps = 30.8361*10^12 km = 206125.7 AU = 3.2616 ly > > -- Zenon From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 23 11:51 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["834" "Mon" "23" "June" "1997" "12:51:26" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "23" "Re: starship-design: Stars_within_16_light_years_of_the_Sun" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id LAA10147 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:51:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA10092 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:51:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp2.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp2.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.74]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA26425 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 14:51:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33AED3BE.608D@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <199706231803.UAA28752@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> <199706231823.LAA28244@darkwing.uoregon.edu> <33AED361.3D0F@sunherald.infi.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 833 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Stars_within_16_light_years_of_the_Sun Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 12:51:26 -0700 > > Steve VanDevender wrote: > > > > Zenon Kulpa writes: > > Sorry, but this MUST be in error. > > Your data gives B farther away than A by 0.5 ps, that is 1.6 ly, > > and at the same distance as to Barnard. > > And both these are certainly not true. > > I'll have to agree with Zenon on this one. Alpha Centauri is a trinary > system, with Proxima being distant from A/B; the apparent distance to > A and B should be nearly identical. > I have studied astronomy quite thoroughly, and agree with Zenon and Steve: The distance is in error. Most likely whoever put it on the web in the first place accidentally put 8 instead of 3. Those numbers do look very similar. Steve: You are quite correct on the magnitude part. I didn't even notice it at first. The "visual"should be "absolute" magnitude. Very observant. Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 23 11:55 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3283" "Mon" "23" "June" "1997" "20:53:24" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "80" "RE: starship-design: Stars_within_16_light_years_of_the_Sun" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id LAA11498 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:55:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA11441 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:55:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id UAA28798; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 20:53:24 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706231853.UAA28798@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3282 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: RE: starship-design: Stars_within_16_light_years_of_the_Sun Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 20:53:24 +0200 (MET DST) > From: Steve VanDevender > > Zenon Kulpa writes: > > Sorry, but this MUST be in error. > > Your data gives B farther away than A by 0.5 ps, that is 1.6 ly, > > and at the same distance as to Barnard. > > And both these are certainly not true. > > I'll have to agree with Zenon on this one. Alpha Centauri is a trinary > system, with Proxima being distant from A/B; the apparent distance to > A and B should be nearly identical. > As one of the sources says, currently it is 23 AU (0.0001 ps - a little farther than Uranus from Sun); the minimal distance being half that (11 AU). > > I am also including some data from some other sources for comparison below. > > Note also differences concerning spectral types and magnitudes > > between the sources. > > Lee's chart is also mislabeled; substitute "absolute" for "visual" in > the heading. > Yes (*). > The difference in spectral class is likely a difference in opinion. > Spectral class is judged primarily by the appearance and relative > strength of sets of spectral lines corresponding to different elements > and compounds in their various ionization states; these can provide a > good estimate of the surface temperature of the star, as well as the > abundance of the elements involved. Several components of spectral > class are rather subjective and may be interpreted differently by > different astronomers, resulting in the different subclass numbers. > I wonder - are these differences of opinion so great (K1 vs. K5 or G0 vs. G2 ?). > The 'V' following the spectral type in Lee's chart is the luminosity class > (most main sequence stars are class V; the classes are roman numerals). > Some sources encode the luminosity class with lower case letters (a, b, c, d, e) instead of Roman numerals. This is probably the meaning of "e" in the spectral type for Proxima. -- Zenon > > NAME DISTANCE SPECTRAL APPARENT ABSOLUTE (*) > > (ps/ly) TYPE MAGNITUDE MAGNITUDE > > L. Parker source: > > ----------------- > > Proxima Centauri 1.3 M6 V 11.05 15.49 > > Alpha Centauri A 1.33 G2 V -0.01 4.37 > > Alpha Centauri B 1.83 K1 V 1.33 5.71 > > Barnard's Star 1.83 M4 V 9.54 13.22 > > > > http://www.essex1.com/people/speer/stars.html: > > ---------------------------------------------- > > Proxima Centauri (1.29)/4.2 M5e 11.3 > > Alpha Centauri A (1.32)/4.3 G0 .33 > > Alpha Centauri B (1.32)/4.3 K5 1.70 > > Barnard's Star (1.83)/5.96 M5 9.5 > > > > > > http://monet.physik.unibas.ch/~schatzer/Alpha-Centauri.html: > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Proxima Centauri (1.29)/4.22 M5e > > Alpha Centauri A (1.33)/4.35 G2 > > Alpha Centauri B (1.33)/4.35 K1 > > > > Separation A/B (current): 23 AU = 0.00001 ps > > > > The units: > > ---------- > > AU = 149 598 770 km > > ly = 9.4543*10^12 km = 63197.7 AU = 0.3066 ps > > ps = 30.8361*10^12 km = 206125.7 AU = 3.2616 ly > > From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 23 12:13 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4015" "Mon" "23" "June" "1997" "13:48:38" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "83" "RE: starship-design: Stars_within_16_light_years_of_the_Sun" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id MAA20301 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 12:13:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA20262 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 12:13:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p21.gnt.com [204.49.68.226]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA25105 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 14:13:33 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC7FDF.9FC5B4A0@x2p24.gnt.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 14:13:29 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC7FDF.9FC5B4A0@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id MAA20285 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 4014 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'Steve VanDevender'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Stars_within_16_light_years_of_the_Sun Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 13:48:38 -0500 Steve, I already wrote Zenon back regarding this. I'm not qualified to argue this point, I simply copied it off of the web. I wrote the author and asked HIM to check his data. There has recently been a new more accurate study completed called HIPPARCOS which has provided much more accurate data on several MILLION stars, by far the largest sky survey ever. Along with charting positions and movements more accurately, it also increased both the size and age of the universe. Perhaps his data is from this survey. I don't know. I agree with Zenon as well. I always THOUGHT that they were approximately the same distance away. I think half a parsec is a little farther than I had in mind. Incidentally, the HIPPARCOS data is available for download along with database access software for PC/Windows, Macintosh and UNIX. Of course the data is over a hundred megabytes.... Lee Parker Long experience has taught me not to believe in the limitations indicated by purely theoretical considerations. These - as we well know - are based on insufficient knowledge of all the relevant factors." Guglielmo Marconi -----Original Message----- From: Steve VanDevender [SMTP:stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu] Sent: Monday, June 23, 1997 1:23 PM To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Stars_within_16_light_years_of_the_Sun Zenon Kulpa writes: > Sorry, but this MUST be in error. > Your data gives B farther away than A by 0.5 ps, that is 1.6 ly, > and at the same distance as to Barnard. > And both these are certainly not true. I'll have to agree with Zenon on this one. Alpha Centauri is a trinary system, with Proxima being distant from A/B; the apparent distance to A and B should be nearly identical. > I am also including some data from some other sources for comparison below. > Note also differences concerning spectral types and magnitudes > between the sources. Lee's chart is also mislabeled; substitute "absolute" for "visual" in the heading. The difference in spectral class is likely a difference in opinion. Spectral class is judged primarily by the appearance and relative strength of sets of spectral lines corresponding to different elements and compounds in their various ionization states; these can provide a good estimate of the surface temperature of the star, as well as the abundance of the elements involved. Several components of spectral class are rather subjective and may be interpreted differently by different astronomers, resulting in the different subclass numbers. The 'V' following the spectral type in Lee's chart is the luminosity class (most main sequence stars are class V; the classes are roman numerals). > NAME DISTANCE SPECTRAL APPARENT VISUAL > (ps/ly) TYPE MAGNITUDE MAGNITUDE > L. Parker source: > ----------------- > Proxima Centauri 1.3 M6 V 11.05 15.49 > Alpha Centauri A 1.33 G2 V -0.01 4.37 > Alpha Centauri B 1.83 K1 V 1.33 5.71 > Barnard's Star 1.83 M4 V 9.54 13.22 > > http://www.essex1.com/people/speer/stars.html: > ---------------------------------------------- > Proxima Centauri (1.29)/4.2 M5e 11.3 > Alpha Centauri A (1.32)/4.3 G0 .33 > Alpha Centauri B (1.32)/4.3 K5 1.70 > Barnard's Star (1.83)/5.96 M5 9.5 > > > http://monet.physik.unibas.ch/~schatzer/Alpha-Centauri.html: > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Proxima Centauri (1.29)/4.22 M5e > Alpha Centauri A (1.33)/4.35 G2 > Alpha Centauri B (1.33)/4.35 K1 > > Separation A/B (current): 23 AU = 0.00001 ps > > The units: > ---------- > AU = 149 598 770 km > ly = 9.4543*10^12 km = 63197.7 AU = 0.3066 ps > ps = 30.8361*10^12 km = 206125.7 AU = 3.2616 ly > > -- Zenon From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 23 14:26 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2719" "Mon" "23" "June" "1997" "16:12:57" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "66" "RE: starship-design: Stars_within_16_light_years_of_the_Sun" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id OAA18465 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 14:26:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA18443 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 14:26:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p21.gnt.com [204.49.68.226]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA31887 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 16:25:02 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC7FF1.FE04BAE0@x2p24.gnt.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 16:24:58 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC7FF1.FE04BAE0@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id OAA18447 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2718 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Stars_within_16_light_years_of_the_Sun Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 16:12:57 -0500 Zenon, I found this while browsing from one of the links that you sent: ============= Begin Copied Message ===================== Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 17:20:01 +0002 From: Jean.Schneider@obspm.fr Subject: possible planet in Lalande 21185 To: exoplanets@gag.observ-gr.fr Message-Id: <01I4JRB7UTV60011GX@MESIOB.OBSPM.FR> Lalande 21185 George Gatewood We report the detection of accelerations in the astrometric motion of Lalande 21185 that indicate the presence of a planetary system. The clearest indication is an excess in the apparent perspective acceleration of the star, detected at two wavelengths in the data gathered with two independent telescopic optical systems and with detectors of two different types. Superimposed upon this multidecade effect are possibly two shorter term perturbations each near the detection sensitivity of the system with which it is espied. Alone, either of the latter effects would simply result in an increased rate of observation, but some evidence of each effect is detected in the signal of the other astrometric instrumentation and neither seems to explain the long term acceleration. An initial pass to the data indicates that the disturbing masses would usually be more than 0.8 arcsec from this frequently observed star. Thus companions of significant luminosity are effectively ruled out. The approximate nature of a relatively short period component is suggested by data obtained, over the last 8.5 years, with the University of Pittsburgh Multichannel Astrometric Photometer (MAP). We find: a low eccentricity orbit, a period of approximately 5.8 yrs, a semimajor axis of 0.0022 arcsec, and a probable mass of 0.9 times that of Jupiter. Residuals from this orbital analysis, and from data obtained from the Allegheny Observatory's plate series, indicate the presence of at least one additional component, but its exact nature is unclear. A possible solution involves a second companion with a period of approximately 30 years, however the period is not well established and the residuals to this solution also indicate a remaining acceleration. The source of the latter may be a substantial underestimation of the period of the second mass or it may indicate the presence of a yet longer period 3rd planetary body. ============= End Copied Message ======================= I know there have been lots of planets "found" lately, but this one is practically next door - Lalande is only a little over 8 light years away! Lee Parker Long experience has taught me not to believe in the limitations indicated by purely theoretical considerations. These - as we well know - are based on insufficient knowledge of all the relevant factors." Guglielmo Marconi From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 23 14:26 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1242" "Mon" "23" "June" "1997" "16:18:52" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "23" "starship-design: Some Suggested Robotic Missions to Gliese 411 (Lalande 21185)" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id OAA18467 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 14:26:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA18445 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 14:26:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p21.gnt.com [204.49.68.226]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA31895 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 16:25:06 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC7FF2.00FFAB60@x2p24.gnt.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 16:25:03 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC7FF2.00FFAB60@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id OAA18449 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1241 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Some Suggested Robotic Missions to Gliese 411 (Lalande 21185) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 16:18:52 -0500 --------------------- Forwarded Abstract ---------------------------- Some Suggested Robotic Missions to Gliese 411 (Lalande 21185) Frederick R. West 520 Diller Road, Hanover PA 17331-4805 Some suggested robotic missions to the nearby star Gliese 411 (Lalande 21185) are outlined. Gatewood (1996, BAAS, 28, 885) recently detected two Jovian-mass planets orbiting Gliese 411, which made it an interesting interstellar objective. The first mission has the spacecraft (SC) reach Gliese 411 near its closest approach to the solar system (predicted to be ~293,000 AU in about the year 22,000). Another mission requiring higher propulsive performance has the SC reach Gliese 411 as it crosses the ecliptic in ~15,050 at ~330,000 AU distance; en route it could accomplish many objectives of the TAU mission (Meinel & Meinel 1986, BAAS, 18, 1012), which requires similar propulsive performance. --------------------- End Forwarded Abstract ---------------------------- Read the mission dates CAREFULLY! Lee Parker Long experience has taught me not to believe in the limitations indicated by purely theoretical considerations. These - as we well know - are based on insufficient knowledge of all the relevant factors." Guglielmo Marconi From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 23 15:31 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["892" "Mon" "23" "June" "1997" "16:31:20" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "20" "starship-design: Lalande 21185" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id PAA17774 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 15:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA17749 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 15:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp4.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp4.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.76]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA29467 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 18:31:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33AF0748.5FF4@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 891 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Lalande 21185 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 16:31:20 -0700 Greetings all: I don't know if we should send a mission to L21185, for several reasons. 1: We don't know if there are terrestrial planets in the system. 2: We have a (hypothetical) system ready for exploration. 3: Small M class stars like L21185 would not have habitable planets in their systems. The reasons? The planet would need to be so close to the star for sufficient heating that it would become tidally locked, and would be subjected to severe stresses. Tidally locked planets would be superheated on one side, and supercooled on the other side. And the stresses would likely cause severe storms, and earthquakes, not to mention the volcanic activity. Besides, the CHZ is VERY narrow. In my view, sending a mission to L21185 is a waste of resources. And another question: do we really want to wait about 13,000 years before leaving the solar system? I think not. Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 23 15:46 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["539" "Mon" "23" "June" "1997" "16:52:50" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "22" "starship-design: http://www.empire.net/~whatmoug/Extrasolar/extrasolar_visions.html" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id PAA23796 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 15:46:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA23777 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 15:46:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p21.gnt.com [204.49.68.226]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA03434 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 17:46:53 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC7FFD.6CF0B8E0@x2p24.gnt.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 17:46:49 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC7FFD.6CF0B8E0@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BC7FFD.6D231380" Content-Length: 538 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: http://www.empire.net/~whatmoug/Extrasolar/extrasolar_visions.html Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 16:52:50 -0500 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC7FFD.6D231380 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is one cool site... http://www.empire.net/~whatmoug/Extrasolar/extrasolar_visions.html ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC7FFD.6D231380 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Extrasolar Visions.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 W0ludGVybmV0U2hvcnRjdXRdDQpVUkw9aHR0cDovL3d3dy5lbXBpcmUubmV0L353aGF0bW91Zy9F eHRyYXNvbGFyL2V4dHJhc29sYXJfdmlzaW9ucy5odG1sDQo= ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC7FFD.6D231380-- From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 23 15:47 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2029" "Mon" "23" "June" "1997" "17:22:19" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "20" "" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id PAA23835 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 15:47:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA23810 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 15:46:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p21.gnt.com [204.49.68.226]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA03441 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 17:46:58 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC7FFD.704ED800@x2p24.gnt.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 17:46:54 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC7FFD.704ED800@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id PAA23817 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2028 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 17:22:19 -0500 Hi Everyone, Steve is probably going to shoot me for getting off the subject, but... I have been thinking of all of the weird and different theories that have emerged in the last few years, mostly because of Kyle's insistence. It brought back something I wrote about 20 years ago for a class I was in. It was pretty far-fetched then (read: stupid) but now it is beginning to sound plausible. Physicists have recently been speculating that there may be an electromagnetic explanation for inertia which brings up the possibility of controlling inertia. In other words, an "inertialess drive". Now think about this, FTL would be really nice, but we still need better propulsion in and out of atmosphere and gravity wells, we aren't going to go FTL from ground level after all. With a decent inertialess drive we could accelerate to high fractions of c in reasonable amounts of time. I would be quite happy to settle for a 4 year real time trip to Alpha Centauri (2 weeks ship time). That would basically open up every star within a hundred or so light years to exploration, colonization and trade. Now I am not saying that we should CHANGE our design plans. Any advance we might make along those lines could be incorporated when it happens. I doubt that we would have to redesign much of anything significant. By the time we do figure out how to go FTL we could already be well established among the stars. Now to more mundane matters. The point of my posting the list of stars within 5 parsecs wasn't to poke holes in it (sorry Zenon) I just wanted everyone to see that there were FIFTY EIGHT stars within our reach NOW. If you expand that another 5 parsecs there are THOUSANDS. I think we are wasting time here...we need a couple of gigawatt free electron lasers in orbit to start pushing out Starwisps as soon as we can. We should be getting the first results back by the time we figure out a better way to push manned starships to the stars. Lee Parker Long experience has taught me not to believe in the limitations From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 23 15:47 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1465" "Mon" "23" "June" "1997" "17:46:20" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "38" "RE: starship-design: Lalande 21185" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id PAA23901 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 15:47:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA23866 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 15:47:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p21.gnt.com [204.49.68.226]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA03467 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 17:47:07 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC7FFD.7559BCC0@x2p24.gnt.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 17:47:03 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC7FFD.7559BCC0@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id PAA23869 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1464 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'kyle'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Lalande 21185 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 17:46:20 -0500 Kyle, I wasn't proposing to go there, I was amused by the mission profile. Thirteen thousand years? Who is he kidding? What rock is he hiding under? Lee Parker Long experience has taught me not to believe in the limitations indicated by purely theoretical considerations. These - as we well know - are based on insufficient knowledge of all the relevant factors." Guglielmo Marconi -----Original Message----- From: kyle [SMTP:stk@sunherald.infi.net] Sent: Monday, June 23, 1997 6:31 PM To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Lalande 21185 Greetings all: I don't know if we should send a mission to L21185, for several reasons. 1: We don't know if there are terrestrial planets in the system. 2: We have a (hypothetical) system ready for exploration. 3: Small M class stars like L21185 would not have habitable planets in their systems. The reasons? The planet would need to be so close to the star for sufficient heating that it would become tidally locked, and would be subjected to severe stresses. Tidally locked planets would be superheated on one side, and supercooled on the other side. And the stresses would likely cause severe storms, and earthquakes, not to mention the volcanic activity. Besides, the CHZ is VERY narrow. In my view, sending a mission to L21185 is a waste of resources. And another question: do we really want to wait about 13,000 years before leaving the solar system? I think not. Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 23 16:23 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["977" "Mon" "23" "June" "1997" "17:23:06" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "19" "starship-design: Steve VanDevender" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id QAA08453 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 16:23:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA08405 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 16:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp4.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp2.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.74]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA21786 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 19:23:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33AF1369.A6A@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 976 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Steve VanDevender Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 17:23:06 -0700 In addition to the message I just posted, I would like to say this: Steve VanDevender is not trying to be mean to us for speculating; He's just trying to make sure that we realize, we may not have some of the more speculative ideas by 2055. You must be skeptical of sensitive ideas. Now I believe that we should continue with speculative ideas, and develop them, even include the more known ones in some designs (Not all designs.) That is why I am continuing on with my FTL ideas. But just remember this: Steve is not trying to wreck our ideas, he's helping us. Kyle Mcallister P.S.: I'm working on some more calculations on the TC system, and have a Basic program that can produce a graphic representation of the TC system if anyone is interested. I also have one with two globes, one Earth scaled, one TC1 scaled. It gives an idea as to the size of TC1. I will post the program commands if anyone is interested. Lee Parker: You were right. That website is pretty neat! From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 23 18:42 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["526" "Mon" "23" "June" "1997" "20:32:21" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "21" "starship-design: http://www.clark.net/pub/nyrath/hstars.gif" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id SAA22175 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 18:42:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA22154 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 18:42:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p21.gnt.com [204.49.68.226]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA14617 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 20:42:45 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC8015.FD1DFA00@x2p24.gnt.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 20:42:38 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC8015.FD1DFA00@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BC8015.FD68BEA0" Content-Length: 525 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: http://www.clark.net/pub/nyrath/hstars.gif Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 20:32:21 -0500 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC8015.FD68BEA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Another way cool site - a MAP of the 46 closest SUN-like stars! http://www.clark.net/pub/nyrath/hstars.gif ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC8015.FD68BEA0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="hstars.gif at www.clark.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 W0ludGVybmV0U2hvcnRjdXRdDQpVUkw9aHR0cDovL3d3dy5jbGFyay5uZXQvcHViL255cmF0aC9o c3RhcnMuZ2lmDQo= ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC8015.FD68BEA0-- From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 23 18:42 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["657" "Mon" "23" "June" "1997" "20:38:57" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "25" "starship-design: http://www.clark.net/pub/nyrath/closegal.gif" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id SAA22245 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 18:42:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA22227 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 18:42:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p21.gnt.com [204.49.68.226]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA14636 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 20:42:55 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC8016.047BF680@x2p24.gnt.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 20:42:51 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC8016.047BF680@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BC8016.04AE5120" Content-Length: 656 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: http://www.clark.net/pub/nyrath/closegal.gif Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 20:38:57 -0500 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC8016.04AE5120 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Steve, You said you were using the Gliese Catalog, here is your 3D map of ALL = stars within 7 parsecs from the Gliese 2.0 Catalog. Check this site out, = he has MORE. =20 =20 http://www.clark.net/pub/nyrath/closegal.gif =00 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC8016.04AE5120 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="closegal.gif at www.clark.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 W0ludGVybmV0U2hvcnRjdXRdDQpVUkw9aHR0cDovL3d3dy5jbGFyay5uZXQvcHViL255cmF0aC9j bG9zZWdhbC5naWYNCg== ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC8016.04AE5120-- From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 23 22:16 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["20174" "Mon" "23" "June" "1997" "23:49:55" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "277" "starship-design: Possibly habitable stars within 100 parsecs" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id WAA12725 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 22:16:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id WAA12714 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 22:16:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p21.gnt.com [204.49.68.226]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA26645 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 00:16:49 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC8033.E44759E0@x2p24.gnt.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 00:16:42 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC8033.E44759E0@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id WAA12716 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Length: 20173 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Possibly habitable stars within 100 parsecs Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 23:49:55 -0500 Okay, here it is, THE LIST of stars within 100 parsecs that meet basic conditions for supporting our kind of life. This list was drawn from the Gliese 2.0 catalog so if there are any errors you will have to hold a séance to contact the author... You may have to widen the screen on your mail reader to get the columns to format properly. I have appended a link to the original page at the bottom. This is another way cool site. Stars with no binaries, farther than 0.00pc and closer than 100.00pc, Lum between 0.4 and 2.0 Gliese StarName Spec DistPC X Y Z Xg Yg Zg Lum 5 DM+28 4704 K0Ve 13.70 12.01, 0.21, 6.59| -4.18, 10.73, -7.43 0.60 6 DM+35 8 F5d 25.00 20.13, 0.54, 14.82| -8.98, 20.71,-10.74 1.91 10.1 DM-59 14 G4V 40.00 20.47, 0.81,-34.35| 14.53,-15.85,-33.72 0.69 13 DM-53 36 G2V 22.22 13.37, 0.84,-17.73| 6.94, -6.99,-19.92 0.83 14.1 DM-44 52 G5IV+ 43.48 31.14, 2.01,-30.27| 10.79, -8.10,-41.33 1.10 16.1 DM-08 38 G5IV+ 25.00 24.68, 1.74, -3.62| -1.42, 8.68,-23.40 1.45 17 ZET TUC G2V 7.14 2.99, 0.23, -6.48| 2.73, -3.46, -5.62 0.95 17.3 DM-13 60 G2V 20.41 19.85, 1.76, -4.41| -0.74, 5.70,-19.58 1.10 27 DM+20 85 K0V 10.53 9.70, 1.57, 3.77| -3.84, 6.88, -6.98 0.46 27.2 DM-24 263 G3V 18.87 16.99, 2.85, -7.70| 0.10, 1.36,-18.82 1.10 29 DM-60 118 G1V 19.23 9.56, 1.60,-16.61| 5.99, -8.38,-16.24 1.50 31.5 DM-66 38 G3V 20.41 8.19, 1.54,-18.63| 7.12,-10.53,-15.97 0.91 37 PHI(2) CET F8V 15.63 15.01, 3.16, -2.96| -2.34, 3.77,-14.98 1.85 46.1 DM+17 135 G5 20.00 18.43, 4.73, 6.16| -8.35, 11.53,-14.05 0.44 53.4 DM+41 219 F8V 20.00 14.26, 4.32, 13.33|-11.18, 15.01, -7.05 1.91 55 NU PHE F8V 13.89 9.20, 3.03, -9.96| 1.55, -4.25,-13.13 1.91 56.5 DM+75 58 K0d 19.61 4.33, 1.53, 19.06|-10.84, 15.64, 4.73 0.52 59.1 DM+68 113 G6V 21.28 7.13, 2.99, 19.82|-12.67, 16.93, 2.37 1.00 59.2 DM-07 256 G2d 14.71 13.45, 5.65, -1.86| -4.94, 2.69,-13.59 1.00 65.1 DM+45 404 G4d 19.61 12.51, 5.61, 14.02|-12.51, 14.07, -5.46 0.83 67 DM+41 328 G2V 11.49 7.72, 3.55, 7.75| -7.36, 7.97, -3.80 1.25 67.1 DM-83 22 G2V 17.24 1.85, 0.85,-17.12| 7.41,-12.22, -9.64 1.20 67.2 DM-4 473 G5V 50.00 31.70, 14.69,-35.77| 2.34,-17.63,-46.73 0.44 68 DM+19 279 K1V 7.46 6.36, 2.96, 2.56| -4.24, 3.70, -4.90 0.41 71 TAU CET G8Vp 3.61 3.13, 1.49, -1.01| -1.02, 0.12, -3.46 0.47 72 DM+19 282 G4d 16.39 13.91, 6.65, 5.56| -9.43, 8.00,-10.76 0.76 77 DM-42 638 G4V 23.81 15.89, 7.94,-15.85| -0.33, -7.55,-22.58 0.76 81.1 DM-10 403 G5 20.00 17.25, 9.44, -3.64| -7.64, 1.54,-18.42 1.00 81.3 DM-52 397 F8V 23.81 12.84, 7.05,-18.77| 2.05,-10.82,-21.11 1.91 82.1 DM+32 360 G7d 20.83 15.28, 8.48, 11.34|-13.91, 12.15, -9.64 0.52 83.2 DM+02 311 G1d 21.74 18.92, 10.65, 1.08|-11.09, 5.33,-17.92 1.91 86 DM-51 532 K0V 11.24 5.98, 3.75, -8.74| 0.55, -5.25, -9.92 0.41 92 DEL TRI G0Ve 10.31 7.13, 4.72, 5.76| -7.38, 5.68, -4.42 1.10 95 DM-26 828 G5V 13.70 10.17, 6.91, -6.04| -3.79, -2.60,-12.91 0.52 97 KAP FOR G1V 12.99 9.71, 6.81, -5.29| -4.04, -2.22,-12.14 1.32 99.1 DM+29 423 G0d 20.41 14.26, 10.54, 10.11|-15.04, 9.81, -9.70 1.58 108 IOT HOR G3IV 14.29 6.86, 5.80,-11.10| -0.16, -7.50,-12.16 1.28 110 DM-67 142 F8 25.00 7.43, 6.38,-23.00| 5.05,-16.33,-18.24 1.91 113.1 DM+30 448 G9e 21.28 13.69, 12.08, 10.93|-16.74, 9.44, -9.12 0.76 115 DM-44 863 F8V 40.00 21.21, 19.24,-27.93| -4.71,-19.01,-34.88 0.76 120.2 DM+26 503 G6d 18.18 11.54, 11.49, 8.09|-14.71, 6.53, -8.45 0.63 121.2 DM-06 594 G5d 33.33 23.33, 23.56, -3.40|-20.49, -1.65,-26.25 0.58 132 DM-46 968 G3V 27.03 12.51, 14.07,-19.39| -3.74,-14.61,-22.43 1.32 135 DM-03 534 G2d 23.26 15.20, 17.56, -1.23|-15.75, -1.33,-17.06 0.76 136 ZET(1) RET G2V 11.24 3.36, 3.89, -9.99| 1.21, -7.53, -8.25 0.70 137 KAP CET G5Ve 9.35 6.10, 7.06, 0.52| -6.82, 0.21, -6.38 0.92 138 ZET(2) RET G1V 11.24 3.36, 3.91, -9.98| 1.19, -7.54, -8.25 0.93 139 82 ERI G5V 6.21 2.94, 3.44, -4.26| -1.14, -3.27, -5.16 0.70 141.1 DM+28 532 G5de 20.00 11.08, 13.63, 9.56|-17.26, 6.44, -7.79 0.76 141.2 DM-31 1384 G8V 28.57 15.44, 19.08,-14.63|-10.62,-11.88,-23.72 0.52 147.1 DM-03 592 F9V 25.64 14.88, 20.83, -1.51|-18.45, -3.17,-17.53 1.32 160 DM+21 587 G1d 14.49 6.60, 11.72, 5.40|-13.28, 2.00, -5.45 0.84 162.1 DM-64 143 G3V 22.22 4.56, 8.47,-20.03| 1.99,-16.48,-14.77 1.32 172.1 DM+45 969 G8V 18.87 4.77, 12.17, 13.60|-17.52, 6.99, -0.17 0.58 177 DM-17 954 G1d 12.99 3.97, 11.76, -3.80| -8.70, -6.17, -7.41 0.98 177.1 DM-05 1044 G0V 20.83 6.57, 19.66, -2.09|-16.59, -7.18,-10.36 1.91 182.1 DM+14 804 G5V 20.83 5.42, 19.45, 5.15|-19.82, -2.25, -6.00 0.87 186.1 DM-56 1071 G5V 23.26 3.28, 12.53,-19.32| -1.81,-18.41,-14.09 0.76 189.1 DM-12 1076 F9d 20.41 4.73, 19.35, -4.44|-15.06, -9.69, -9.79 1.58 193 DM-15 978 G6d 22.22 4.44, 20.91, -6.08|-15.61,-11.76,-10.59 0.48 198 DM-18 1051 G0d 15.63 2.79, 14.58, -4.88|-10.55, -8.82, -7.41 0.91 204.1 DM-60 1169 G5Ve 21.74 1.54, 10.61,-18.91| -0.22,-18.10,-12.03 0.69 209 DM+20 1018 G4IV+ 33.33 3.52, 30.98, 11.79|-32.97, -3.44, -3.47 0.91 210 DM-43 1954 G0V 28.57 2.14, 20.79,-19.48| -8.86,-22.81,-14.74 0.83 222 CHI(1) ORI G0V 9.90 0.35, 9.28, 3.43| -9.78, -1.46, -0.47 1.54 223.3 DM-50 1977 K1V 16.67 0.33, 10.62,-12.84| -3.09,-14.18, -8.19 0.63 224 DM+13 1036 G0V 22.22 0.64, 21.56, 5.35|-21.44, -5.41, -2.16 1.00 226.3 DM+35 1334 G0d 22.22 -0.22, 18.11, 12.87|-22.02, 1.32, 2.70 1.58 230 DM+10 1050 G6V 17.54 -0.78, 17.22, 3.24|-16.55, -5.73, -1.07 0.74 231 ALF MEN G5V 8.70 -0.12, 2.29, -8.39| 2.07, -7.33, -4.19 0.64 243 DM-27 3248 G2V 21.74 -3.59, 18.98, -9.97|-11.50,-17.74, -5.05 1.20 245 PSI(5) AUR G0V 14.93 -2.02, 10.61, 10.30|-14.10, 1.89, 4.49 1.63 252 DM+25 1496 G0d 19.23 -3.92, 16.92, 8.26|-18.49, -3.40, 4.02 1.58 260 DM-61 1535 K0IV+e 16.13 -1.99, 7.49,-14.14| 0.43,-14.88, -6.20 0.44 262 DM+29 1441 G4V 17.24 -3.91, 14.50, 8.47|-16.49, -2.15, 4.56 1.10 268.4 DM-40 3035 G3V 50.00-12.03, 35.80,-32.77|-14.59,-46.45,-11.38 0.58 275 DM-51 2507 G5IV+ 20.00 -4.59, 11.63,-15.61| -2.30,-19.12, -5.39 0.76 285.1 DM+70 474 G5d 22.22 -3.23, 6.75, 20.93|-15.79, 10.95, 11.16 0.63 290 DM+80 238 G8d 14.29 -1.08, 2.12, 14.09| -8.59, 9.00, 7.02 0.44 292.2 DM-01 1883 G8V 22.22-10.43, 19.61, -0.50|-16.18,-14.34, 5.13 0.48 295 DM+29 1664 G8V 17.24 -7.37, 13.10, 8.46|-15.02, -3.23, 7.82 0.43 296.1 DM-29 5555 G4V 22.22-10.06, 16.58,-10.86| -8.54,-20.51, 0.60 0.83 296.2 DM+70 497 F8d 21.74 -3.89, 6.39, 20.41|-15.19, 10.40, 11.56 1.10 302 DM-12 2449 G8V 12.66 -6.91, 10.25, -2.73| -7.16,-10.05, 2.81 0.58 304 DM-39 4247 G6V 20.83 -9.20, 13.17,-13.27| -4.46,-20.34, -0.61 0.52 306 DM-03 2333 F2d 18.52-10.74, 15.04, -1.16|-11.85,-12.93, 5.95 1.74 306.1 DM-29 6145 G4V 30.30-15.44, 21.30,-15.04|-10.28,-28.40, 2.46 0.63 307.1 DM+46 1398 G4d 21.28 -8.72, 11.99, 15.26|-17.26, 1.66, 12.33 1.16 311 PI(1) UMA G0V 15.63 -4.10, 5.12, 14.18|-11.05, 6.24, 9.12 1.24 312 DM-39 4574 G4IV+ 22.22-10.69, 13.26,-14.28| -3.95,-21.87, 0.21 1.10 321.2 DM-42 4577 G5V 23.81-11.47, 13.31,-16.07| -3.08,-23.61, 0.05 0.69 327 DM-04 2490 G3d 11.76 -7.98, 8.57, -1.08| -6.43, -8.60, 4.82 0.50 334.2 DM+34 1949 G0de 21.74-13.05, 12.41, 12.18|-15.84, -2.95, 14.59 1.74 354.1 DM+27 1775 G9d 19.23-13.56, 10.42, 8.79|-12.44, -4.83, 13.85 0.52 364 DM-23 8646 G0V 13.89-10.42, 7.30, -5.58| -2.97,-12.57, 5.10 1.91 368 DM+46 1551 G1V 15.15 -8.72, 5.81, 10.95| -9.77, 1.24, 11.51 1.91 376 DM+32 1964 G4V 14.29-10.42, 6.13, 7.61| -8.33, -2.23, 11.39 1.32 385.1 DM-32 7158 G1V 20.41-15.26, 7.84,-11.05| -0.48,-19.28, 6.68 1.10 388.2 DM-14 3093 F8V 34.48-30.06, 14.27, -9.06| -6.05,-27.98, 19.22 1.45 395 DM+56 1459 F8V 12.05 -6.16, 2.63, 10.02| -6.73, 3.24, 9.46 1.53 407 DM+41 2147 G0V 13.51 -9.86, 2.80, 8.81| -6.04, 0.45, 12.08 1.58 412.2 DM-29 8875 G2V 22.73-19.15, 4.64,-11.33| 2.72,-19.96, 10.52 1.20 417 DM+36 2162 G0V 19.23-15.17, 3.38, 11.33| -7.40, -0.56, 17.74 0.91 423.1 DM-04 3049 G8V 21.74-21.26, 4.15, -1.82| -1.32,-13.70, 16.83 0.52 434 DM+35 2270 G8Ve 9.09 -7.46, 0.70, 5.15| -2.60, -0.16, 8.71 0.55 437 DM-74 632 G1V 25.64 -6.63, 0.58,-24.76| 11.91,-21.96, -5.75 1.58 446 DM-29 9337 G5V 17.54-15.16, 1.01, -8.77| 4.38,-14.46, 8.92 0.69 454 DM-09 3413 K0IV 12.50-12.30, 0.10, -2.21| 1.81, -7.75, 9.64 0.86 458.1 DM-02 3481 G4V 25.00-24.95, -1.08, -1.23| 3.22,-12.72, 21.28 0.63 469.1 DM-02 3528 G8V 45.45-45.07, -5.37, -2.42| 8.88,-21.59, 39.00 0.48 475 BET CVN G0V 9.17 -6.79, -0.94, 6.09| -1.67, 1.61, 8.87 1.50 479.1 DM+80 389 G2de 25.00 -4.50, -0.71, 24.58|-10.96, 16.40, 15.35 0.91 484 DM+40 2570 G0V 17.86-13.53, -2.55, 11.37| -2.37, 2.95, 17.45 1.20 486.1 DM+25 2568 G7V 19.61-17.39, -3.57, 8.32| 0.26, -0.77, 19.59 1.00 501.2 DM-37 8437 G3d 11.24 -8.51, -2.65, -6.85| 6.20, -8.09, 4.73 1.32 502 BET COM G0V 8.33 -7.01, -2.20, 3.93| 0.49, 0.46, 8.31 1.25 503.2 DM+57 1425 G1Ve 27.03-14.02, -4.53, 22.66| -6.06, 12.00, 23.44 1.20 504 DM+10 2531 G0V 12.99-12.14, -4.08, 2.18| 3.32, -2.52, 12.30 1.26 506 DM-17 3813 G6V 8.40 -7.56, -2.59, -2.60| 4.03, -4.49, 5.85 0.82 506.2 DM+85 222 F7d 37.04 -3.04, -1.06, 36.90|-16.71, 26.45, 19.82 1.58 511.1 DM+64 949 G6d 20.00 -8.32, -3.21, 17.90| -5.30, 10.67, 16.06 0.91 530 DM-23 11329 G5d 17.24-14.00, -7.18, -7.05| 10.61, -8.91, 10.25 0.69 532.1 DM-34 9223 K1IV+ 20.83-15.09, -7.94,-11.97| 13.73,-12.77, 9.08 1.32 534.1 DM-54 5466 G8V 12.50 -6.40, -3.45,-10.17| 8.35, -9.17, 1.52 0.58 534.3 DM-33 9467 G5V 32.26-23.47,-12.97,-17.92| 21.57,-19.07, 14.56 0.48 538 DM+11 2625 G8V 15.87-13.46, -7.85, 3.04| 6.29, -0.83, 14.55 0.69 539.1 DM-74 865 G1V 22.22 -5.06, -3.03,-21.43| 13.35,-17.08, -4.90 1.74 540.3 DM-44 9181 G4V 20.83-12.39, -8.08,-14.67| 14.98,-13.39, 5.52 1.20 541.1 DM-06 3964 G8V 16.13-13.29, -8.91, -2.05| 9.66, -4.06, 12.26 0.63 547 DM+01 2920 G1V 16.39-13.40, -9.44, 0.42| 8.94, -2.03, 13.59 0.76 550 DM-51 8206 G5V 30.30-15.18,-11.05,-23.78| 22.16,-20.21, 4.31 0.63 558.1 DM-67 1618 F8V 23.26 -6.91, -5.48,-21.52| 15.65,-16.96, -2.87 1.91 559.1 DM+64 1017 G0de 31.25-10.38, -8.55, 28.21| -5.48, 19.74, 23.60 0.83 564 DM+24 2786 G2d 14.29 -9.69, -8.73, 5.84| 5.44, 3.50, 12.74 0.79 567 DM+19 2881 K1V 11.90 -8.24, -7.63, 3.95| 5.30, 2.31, 10.41 0.50 570.1 DM-48 9494 G5V 17.54 -8.38, -8.00,-13.17| 13.92,-10.33, 2.72 0.83 577 DM+64 1046 G5de 35.71-10.74,-11.21, 32.16| -5.05, 23.71, 26.23 0.48 579.4 DM-24 11928 G4d 21.74-13.26,-14.54, -9.23| 18.05, -6.86, 10.00 1.20 582 NU(2) LUP G2V 15.38 -6.65, -7.82,-11.46| 12.81, -8.29, 1.97 1.20 587 DM-49 9653 G5V 25.00-10.06,-12.62,-19.09| 20.92,-13.49, 2.32 0.48 598 LAM SER G0V 10.64 -5.90, -8.74, 1.39| 7.36, 2.07, 7.40 1.74 609.2 DM+25 3020 G8V 18.87 -8.40,-14.84, 8.09| 9.60, 8.57, 13.80 0.48 611.1 DM-70 1375 G8V 22.22 -3.52, -6.35,-21.00| 15.93,-14.51, -5.41 0.58 611.2 DM+81 541 K0 21.74 -1.69, -3.05, 21.46| -7.60, 16.52, 11.92 0.44 614 DM+44 2549 K1d 15.38 -5.17, -9.80, 10.68| 3.73, 9.82, 11.24 0.48 616 DM-07 4242 G1V 16.39 -7.31,-14.48, -2.35| 14.27, 1.17, 7.99 1.56 620.1 DM-38 10983 G5d 15.38 -5.02,-10.84, -9.70| 14.48, -4.81, 1.93 1.58 624 ZET TRA G0V 10.75 -1.51, -3.36,-10.10| 7.92, -6.75, -2.71 1.20 631 DM-01 3220 K0Ve 10.87 -3.99,-10.10, -0.42| 9.29, 2.27, 5.17 0.54 632 DM+80 519 G3d 25.00 -1.60, -4.08, 24.61| -8.23, 19.38, 13.48 0.91 634.1 DM-02 4230 G2d 26.32 -9.15,-24.64, -1.26| 22.73, 5.65, 12.00 0.83 637.1 DM+68 883 K1V 22.22 -2.73, -7.79, 20.63| -2.99, 17.52, 13.33 0.44 641 DM+00 3593 G8V 15.87 -4.74,-15.15, 0.02| 13.53, 4.50, 6.98 0.52 641.1 DM-20 4572 G3d 17.24 -4.83,-15.43, -5.99| 16.69, 0.11, 4.34 1.32 651 DM+47 2420 G8V 16.13 -2.78,-10.61, 11.82| 3.73, 12.21, 9.86 0.47 652 DM-28 12769 G8IV+ 18.18 -4.05,-15.46, -8.68| 17.96, -1.49, 2.43 0.69 652.1 DM+64 1170 G5d 18.18 -1.95, -7.53, 16.43| -1.24, 14.67, 10.67 1.32 654.1 DM+00 3629 F8d 21.28 -5.26,-20.61, 0.29| 18.20, 6.91, 8.58 1.74 665.1 DM-24 13297 G3d 20.83 -3.71,-18.66, -8.48| 20.64, 0.27, 2.83 0.91 667.1 DM-75 967 G2V 26.32 -1.28, -6.56,-25.45| 18.11,-16.63, -9.36 1.00 672 DM+32 2896 G2V 13.70 -2.07,-11.36, 7.37| 6.49, 9.58, 7.32 1.19 675 DM+67 1014 K0V 13.33 -0.78, -5.08, 12.30| -1.47, 11.06, 7.29 0.43 679 DM+34 2989 G5V 20.41 -2.18,-16.72, 11.50| 9.17, 15.02, 10.34 0.91 683.1 DM-42 12320 G5V 22.22 -1.83,-16.27,-15.02| 21.59, -4.76, -2.26 0.63 691 MU ARA G5V 11.24 -0.60, -6.92, -8.83| 10.35, -3.75, -2.24 1.00 692.1 DM+21 3198 K0V 22.22 -1.70,-20.59, 8.19| 14.12, 14.54, 9.12 0.44 695.1 DM-33 12476 G8V 19.61 -1.09,-16.22,-10.96| 19.53, -1.39, -1.05 0.48 700.2 DM+26 3151 K0V 18.52 0.04,-16.60, 8.21| 10.51, 13.61, 6.88 0.48 702.1 DM-36 12214 G5V 16.95 0.18,-13.71, -9.97| 16.77, -1.16, -2.16 1.10 702.2 DM+04 3589 G2V 23.81 0.33,-23.73, 1.93| 19.75, 12.29, 5.08 1.00 708.4 DM+45 2684 G0d 21.28 0.92,-14.97, 15.10| 5.70, 18.43, 8.97 1.20 722 DM-21 5081 G4d 15.15 2.21,-13.96, -5.45| 14.67, 3.32, -1.79 0.91 724.1 DM-50 12100 G5V 50.00 5.53,-31.52,-38.42| 45.71,-11.69,-16.54 0.44 724.2 DM-77 938 G2V 22.22 0.81, -4.58,-21.73| 14.45,-13.72, -9.84 1.20 725.3 DM-50 12149 G3V 41.67 5.10,-25.86,-32.27| 37.83, -9.86,-14.41 0.58 740.1 DM-00 3631 G5d 30.30 7.86,-29.26, 0.41| 24.81, 17.36, -1.12 0.44 744 DM-37 13049 G5IV 22.73 4.91,-17.25,-13.96| 21.48, -0.20, -7.43 1.58 746 DM+16 3752 G4d 16.95 4.59,-15.57, 4.89| 10.91, 12.91, 1.20 1.00 749 DM-24 15161 F8d 25.00 7.09,-21.66,-10.27| 23.39, 5.60, -6.80 1.74 754.2 DM+37 3417 G8V 20.00 5.31,-15.01, 12.10| 6.89, 18.39, 3.79 1.10 755 DM-35 13422 G5V 21.74 5.95,-16.77,-12.49| 20.27, 1.18, -7.76 1.10 758 DM+32 3411 K0V 17.54 5.13,-13.77, 9.59| 7.04, 15.86, 2.56 0.80 761.1 DM+31 3618 G5d 21.28 6.75,-16.84, 11.12| 8.86, 19.19, 2.43 0.69 762.1 DM+58 1929 K1V 16.67 3.34, -8.04, 14.21| -0.07, 15.85, 5.15 0.58 762.2 DM+21 3822 G5V 21.74 7.83,-18.61, 8.05| 11.83, 18.23, 0.42 0.76 765.3 DM+57 2057 F8 22.22 5.10,-10.65, 18.82| -0.15, 21.32, 6.25 1.45 770 DM-24 15668 K5d 13.70 5.84,-11.06, -5.59| 11.96, 3.70, -5.55 0.58 773.5 DM-23 15935 G7d 11.76 5.36, -9.42, -4.57| 10.08, 3.48, -4.98 0.52 775.1 DM+15 4026 G8V 22.22 10.73,-18.54, 5.92| 12.59, 18.05, -3.09 0.63 776 DM-67 2385 G2V 18.87 3.63, -6.26,-17.43| 13.64, -8.37, -9.99 1.20 779 DM+16 4121 G1V 17.54 8.51,-14.47, 5.11| 9.58, 14.51, -2.31 1.34 780 DEL PAV G8V 5.71 1.18, -1.97, -5.23| 4.17, -2.43, -3.06 1.14 788 DM+66 1281 G5V 14.93 3.32, -4.88, 13.71| -2.59, 14.04, 4.34 0.86 790 DM-31 17597 G5V 17.86 9.03,-12.35, -9.20| 14.63, 3.16, -9.74 0.66 793.1 DM+41 3799 G9V 19.61 8.97,-11.57, 13.05| 3.18, 19.34, 0.41 0.52 794.3 DM+38 4172 G2V 23.26 11.51,-14.11, 14.46| 4.55, 22.80, -0.67 1.00 796 DM-24 16193 G8V 14.29 8.27,-10.10, -5.80| 11.06, 4.31, -7.94 0.52 808.3 DM-12 5854 G1d 21.74 14.40,-15.67, -4.43| 14.85, 10.85,-11.58 1.20 812.1 DM-44 14214 G0V 23.26 11.47,-12.05,-16.24| 17.60, -1.01,-15.16 1.20 814 DM+00 4633 G4de 37.04 25.84,-26.53, 0.56| 21.14, 25.10,-17.16 0.44 822.2 DM+24 4357 G5V 18.18 12.31,-10.91, 7.75| 4.95, 16.75, -5.06 0.48 825.1 DM-61 6571 G5V 20.41 7.30, -6.42,-17.94| 13.78, -6.87,-13.38 0.91 825.2 DM-43 14464 G5V 22.22 12.12,-10.61,-15.31| 15.85, -0.65,-15.56 0.91 827 GAM PAV F8V 8.62 2.75, -2.26, -7.85| 5.58, -3.47, -5.57 1.41 836.1 DM-27 15550 G4IV+ 27.03 19.40,-14.07,-12.49| 17.01, 6.59,-19.93 1.32 836.7 DM+14 4668 G0de 17.54 14.00, -9.61, 4.41| 5.32, 14.51, -8.31 1.10 838 DM-47 13928 G2V 13.70 7.69, -5.14,-10.10| 8.85, -1.42,-10.35 1.00 848.4 DM-08 5818 G9d 17.54 15.31, -8.24, -2.38| 7.31, 9.48,-12.82 0.63 850 DM+35 4725 K0 20.00 14.32, -7.53, 11.76| -0.08, 19.20, -5.59 0.44 851.2 DM-41 14804 G5V 19.23 12.80, -6.55,-12.77| 11.03, -0.25,-15.75 1.10 851.3 DM-16 6046 G8V 19.23 16.46, -8.39, -5.32| 8.79, 7.93,-15.15 0.83 857 DM-58 8327 G4V 14.49 6.97, -3.19,-12.30| 8.26, -4.28,-11.11 1.45 862.1 DM-07 5797 F8 21.74 19.89, -8.37, -2.58| 7.22, 11.66,-16.87 1.58 863.3 DM-55 9122 G5V 29.41 15.72, -6.28,-24.05| 16.05, -7.34,-23.53 0.76 869 DM-32 17191 G8V 20.41 16.17, -6.04,-10.89| 9.45, 2.58,-17.90 0.44 882 DM+19 5036 G4V 13.70 12.32, -3.59, 4.80| -0.01, 11.26, -7.80 1.08 895.4 DM+58 2605 K0V 19.23 9.85, -1.34, 16.46| -7.45, 17.71, -0.71 0.69 902.1 DM-33 16646 K1V 18.52 15.45, -1.54,-10.09| 5.19, 0.79,-17.76 0.44 http://www.clark.net/pub/nyrath/allmap.doc Here is a map of stars within 10 light years of our sun: http://members.nova.org/~sol/chview/maps/p10ly.htm Here is a map of stars within 15 light years of our sun: http://members.nova.org/~sol/chview/maps/p15ly.htm Here is a map of stars within 20 light years of our sun: http://members.nova.org/~sol/chview/maps/p20ly.htm There are lots more... We once had a long discussion about density in the interstellar medium, look at these maps to SEE it: 120 parsec maps http://spacsun.rice.edu/~twg/pc120.html 500 parsec maps http://spacsun.rice.edu/~twg/pc500.html On another vein, some of you already know I am an engineer not a physicist and I am having trouble with this violation of causality thing regarding FTL. Besides the fact that it just doesn't make any sense, consider this example: Example: Let's go from Earth to Alpha Centauri with a young lady named Bright (...who's speed is much faster than light. She set out one day. In a relative way. And returned on the previous night.). Distance is 1.3 parsecs, which is 1.3 * 3.26 = 4.3 light years. Bright travels 500 times light speed. So Bright will take 4.3 / 500 = 0.0086 years to travel to Alpha Centauri. 0.0086 years * 365 = 3.139 days (where 365 is the number of days in a year) 0.139 days * 24 = 3.336 hours (where 24 is the number of hours in a day) 0.336 hours * 60 = 20.16 minutes (where 60 is the number of minutes in an hour) Therefore, the transit time will be 3 days, 3 hours and 20 minutes. (No allowance for time dilation.) Okay, everyone with me so far? Here is the tricky part as I see it: She leaves Earth's time frame and travels for 3 days, 3 hours and 20 minutes later at Alpha Centauri. So why isn't it just 3 days, 3 hours and 20 minutes later on Alpha Centauri? Not only did she not time travel, she doesn't get to Alphan Centauri in time to send any hypothetical message back to Earth that will arrive before she left - it arrives 4.3 years, 3 days, 3 hours and 20 minutes later! Anyone care to explain? Feel free to use math, even engineers know that much . Lee Parker Long experience has taught me not to believe in the limitations indicated by purely theoretical considerations. These - as we well know - are based on insufficient knowledge of all the relevant factors." Guglielmo Marconi From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 24 06:47 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2325" "Tue" "24" "June" "1997" "15:45:04" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "54" "starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id GAA04513 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 06:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id GAA04483 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 06:47:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA29620; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 15:45:04 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706241345.PAA29620@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2324 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 15:45:04 +0200 (MET DST) > From: "L. Parker" > > Now to more mundane matters. The point of my posting the list of stars > within 5 parsecs wasn't to poke holes in it (sorry Zenon) > As a scientists, I am used to carefully check my data before drawing any conclusions from them ;-) > I just wanted > everyone to see that there were FIFTY EIGHT stars within our reach NOW. > If you expand that another 5 parsecs there are THOUSANDS. I think we are > wasting time here...we need a couple of gigawatt free electron lasers > in orbit to start pushing out Starwisps as soon as we can. > We should be getting the first results back by the time we figure out > a better way to push manned starships to the stars. > I do agree. Generally I consider it obvious that starting interstellar manned missions must be preceded by a series of robotic flyby/pathfinder missions (various scenarios of this sort were posted on this list, e.g. by me and, just recently, Lee). And these robotic probes are far easier to design, build and launch using even today's technology. In the same time, they constitute a good exercise in interstellar flight technology, necessary to be advanced and tested before any attempts to actually build and use a manned starship. Possibly we should switch (at least for some time...) into design of such robotic probe(s)? The only problem I can see is safety - what if our robot gets caught by some nearby spacefaring civilization? May be (I am not sure) any interstellar activity of our species should be suspended until we become well established technologically within our planetary system so as to be less vulnerable to any ill effects that may come from the first interstelllar political (or biological) incident... However, design exercises and simulations pose no such problems and can be very useful, if only to sample and structure the space of design possibilities. We do already have sent several interstellar probes, but they will come anywhere near other star system not earlier than some tens of thousands of years, so they seem not to produce any hazard of this sort in the foreseable future. So, why not going robotic for a while? [Additional benefit - lessening the danger of another outburst of that standard Zenon/Kelly flame war on one-way missions... ;-) ] -- Zenon From VM Tue Jun 24 09:00:36 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3678" "Tue" "24" "June" "1997" "09:29:02" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "77" "RE: starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3678 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id IAA00890 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 08:51:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA00731 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 08:51:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p28.gnt.com [204.49.68.233]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA10895 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:36:59 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC8082.281FAE80@x2p24.gnt.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:36:56 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC8082.281FAE80@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id IAA00875 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:29:02 -0500 Zenon, I am not so sure we need worry about contact with another star faring species at any of the destinations on this list or even on the new expanded one. It seems fairly certain that if there were a civilization at any of these stars anywhere near our own level of technology we would already be aware of them. There emissions would have given them away. If the probes are chanced upon by a Type 2 or 3 civilization, it also doesn't matter, OUR emissions have ALREADY given us away. So either way we can send the probes. The only area where care needs to be taken is if we encounter pre-space civilizations so that we don't accidentally destroy their society... I am not all that worried about encountering hostile Type 1 civilizations at any of the nearer stars. We would already know about them and they would already know about us. Besides there are always self destruct charges... Lee Parker Long experience has taught me not to believe in the limitations indicated by purely theoretical considerations. These - as we well know - are based on insufficient knowledge of all the relevant factors." Guglielmo Marconi -----Original Message----- From: Zenon Kulpa [SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 1997 8:45 AM To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: starship-design: Go Starwisps > From: "L. Parker" > > Now to more mundane matters. The point of my posting the list of stars > within 5 parsecs wasn't to poke holes in it (sorry Zenon) > As a scientists, I am used to carefully check my data before drawing any conclusions from them ;-) > I just wanted > everyone to see that there were FIFTY EIGHT stars within our reach NOW. > If you expand that another 5 parsecs there are THOUSANDS. I think we are > wasting time here...we need a couple of gigawatt free electron lasers > in orbit to start pushing out Starwisps as soon as we can. > We should be getting the first results back by the time we figure out > a better way to push manned starships to the stars. > I do agree. Generally I consider it obvious that starting interstellar manned missions must be preceded by a series of robotic flyby/pathfinder missions (various scenarios of this sort were posted on this list, e.g. by me and, just recently, Lee). And these robotic probes are far easier to design, build and launch using even today's technology. In the same time, they constitute a good exercise in interstellar flight technology, necessary to be advanced and tested before any attempts to actually build and use a manned starship. Possibly we should switch (at least for some time...) into design of such robotic probe(s)? The only problem I can see is safety - what if our robot gets caught by some nearby spacefaring civilization? May be (I am not sure) any interstellar activity of our species should be suspended until we become well established technologically within our planetary system so as to be less vulnerable to any ill effects that may come from the first interstelllar political (or biological) incident... However, design exercises and simulations pose no such problems and can be very useful, if only to sample and structure the space of design possibilities. We do already have sent several interstellar probes, but they will come anywhere near other star system not earlier than some tens of thousands of years, so they seem not to produce any hazard of this sort in the foreseable future. So, why not going robotic for a while? [Additional benefit - lessening the danger of another outburst of that standard Zenon/Kelly flame war on one-way missions... ;-) ] -- Zenon From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 24 12:38 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5252" "Tue" "24" "June" "1997" "12:37:58" "-0700" "Ken Wharton" "wharton@physics.ucla.edu" nil "97" "starship-design: Fun With SpaceTime" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id MAA12447 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 12:38:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from physics.ucla.edu (physics.ucla.edu [128.97.23.13]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id MAA12410 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 12:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from watt by physics.ucla.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA14163; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 12:37:58 -0700 Received: by watt (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA10518; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 12:37:58 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706241937.MAA10518@watt> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 5251 From: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Fun With SpaceTime Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 12:37:58 -0700 Lee writes: >On another vein, some of you already know I am an engineer not a physicis >t and I am having trouble with this violation of causality thing regardin >g FTL. Besides the fact that it just doesn't make any sense, consider thi >s example: > >Example: Let's go from Earth to Alpha Centauri with a young lady named Br >ight (...who's speed is much faster than light. She set out one day. In a > relative way. And returned on the previous night.). > >Distance is 1.3 parsecs, which is 1.3 * 3.26 =3D 4.3 light years. > >Bright travels 500 times light speed. So Bright will take 4.3 / 500 = >.0086 years to travel to Alpha Centauri. The problem here is that this is ill-posed -- all velocity is relative. And that gets you into trouble when you are going faster than light. You can't say how FAST she travels; that depends on your reference frame. The only objective facts are 1) the departure point in space-time, and 2) the arrival point (Alpha Centauri) in space-time. Let's assume Lee means that she travels 500 times c in Earth's reference frame (and let's say Alpha Centauri has the same reference frame as Earth, for sake of argument...). Let's also keep it a one-dimension problem. All the units are in years or light-years. So - she blasts off from Earth at x=0, t=0. She arrives at Alpha Centauri at x=4.3 (light-years), t = 4.3/500 = 0.0086 (years). Using the notation (x, t) the departure is (0, 0) and the arrival is (4.3, 0.0086) -- In Earth's Reference Frame. The actual events are not observer-dependant, but the coordinates are. Now, to answer this question: >Okay, everyone with me so far? Here is the tricky part as I see it: > >She leaves Earth's time frame and travels for 3 days, 3 hours and 20 minu >tes later at Alpha Centauri. So why isn't it just 3 days, 3 hours and 20 >minutes later on Alpha Centauri? Not only did she not time travel, she do >esn't get to Alphan Centauri in time to send any hypothetical message bac >k to Earth that will arrive before she left - it arrives 4.3 years, 3 day >s, 3 hours and 20 minutes later! Anyone care to explain? Feel free to use > math, even engineers know that much . The key issue here is that these two points in space-time -- (0, 0) and (4.3, 0.0087) -- are "space-like points": Delta x (0.43) is greater than Delta t (0.0087). This means that there is no other reference frame where the two points in space-time switch in spatial orientation; no matter where you view this from, the arrival will always be further in the x-direction than the departure. But these two points are NOT "time-like points" (Delta t is not greater than Delta x), which means that there ARE some reference frames where these two points switch in temporal orientation. For some observers, the arrival happens BEFORE the departure. There is a "magical" reference frame -- one travelling from Earth to Alpha Centauri at a sub-light speed (only 1/500th of the speed of light) that sees the two events (arrival and departure) happen at EXACTLY the same time. The perceived velocity is infinite. For a reference frame travelling faster than this (say 1/400th of the speed of light) the travel appears to go in the other direction. Now, despite all the other problems that come along with this (infinite energy, which way is she really going, etc.) This can lead to a causality problem if you have a young man named Dwight travelling back to Earth. If you can travel backwards in time in one reference frame, given the priniciple that all reference frames are equivalent, you can also travel backwards in time in Earth's reference frame. This is how it could work: Dwight can pick up a message from Bright at Alpha Centauri, leisurely get into his FTL ship, and accelerate it AWAY Earth so it's travelling, say 1/10th the speed of light. Now, from his perspective (in his reference frame) Bright's departure from Earth hasn't even happened yet, although her arrival at Alpha Centauri has. From his reference frame (signified by primed coordinates), the (x',t') of Bright's departure is now at (-3.87, 0.38) [the math here is a simple Lorentz Transformation into the new reference frame, available in any relativity book -- his (x', t') location is defined to be (0, 0), equivalent to the (x=4.3, t=0.0087) of Bright's arrival] All he's doing is going into a reference frame where Bright's FTL trip seems to go in the opposite direction. Now, given that he can do all this in less than 0.38 years, and not travel too far in the wrong direction, at this point he can turn the ship around and makes the same FTL jump that Bright did -- travelling 500c from his new reference frame toward Earth. He will arrive back at Earth (in the primed coordinate system) at (x'=-3.87, t'=3.87/500 = 0.008). But Bright doesn't leave until (-3.87, 0.38)! So he gets there before Bright left in the first place, hands her the letter, at which point she decides not to go to Alpha Centauri after all. Nice paradox. If you believe that nature will somehow find a stable variant to this paradox then you can't believe in free will. I'd rather believe that this paradox can't happen in the first place. But who knows... Ken Wharton From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 24 17:48 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5655" "Tue" "24" "June" "1997" "17:48:25" "-0700" "Ken Wharton" "wharton@physics.ucla.edu" nil "106" "starship-design: More Fun with Spacetime" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id RAA23420 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 17:48:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from physics.ucla.edu (physics.ucla.edu [128.97.23.13]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA23397 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 17:48:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from watt by physics.ucla.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA17581; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 17:48:26 -0700 Received: by watt (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA13093; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 17:48:25 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706250048.RAA13093@watt> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 5654 From: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: More Fun with Spacetime Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 17:48:25 -0700 Lee, Quick caveat: I made a slight typo (or one that I noticed, anyway). When Dwight zooms off in the wrong direction, he needs a GAMMA [(1-v^2/c^2)^(- 0.5)] = 1.1, not 1/10th light speed as I said before. I think this turns out to be 0.4c. Anyway... >Okay here is where you lost me. WHY did you change frames of reference? I needed to prove that Adding a normal sub-light vector (Dwight's wrong-way trip) with two identical FTL vectors (Bright and Dwight's FTL trip) can wind you up with a net spatial movement of zero, and a net time movement back in time. This can also be done without the extra sub-light vector, but then the two FTL vectors will be different, and the one that takes you "back in time" will of course seem counter-intuitive. If I tried to go that route, you would say that only one "type" of FTL travel was possible, when in fact the two journeys were identical from different frames. In order to spell this out more clearly, I only used one "type" of FTL journey -- 500c from the current frame of the ship. In both of the FTL legs, from Dwight's perspective, the time at Earth advances in a positive direction. This way you can't say that the FTL is taking Dwight back in time and disallow it on those grounds alone. The back-in-time leg was the sub-light journey that Dwight starts out with! His journey away from Earth at 0.4c is the only vector in which time seems to "go backwards" at Earth. Now, this "back-in-time" behavior will happen with or without FTL. This happens in the twin paradox when one twin turns around; the stationary twin "sees" the other twin travel backwards in time. But this is not a true paradox, because by the time they catch up to each other, time has still advanced for both of them; you can never get a net-negative time without FTL. But combined with FTL, this strange but well-established aspect of time -- where a far away event can seem to go backwards in time as you accelerate away from it -- can turn itself into a paradox. With FTL you CAN create a net-negative time travel vector. >It seems obvious from normal physics that if you have a vector A>B with = >time t1 and a vector B>C with time t2 the sum of the vectors is A>C = >where T =3D t1 + t2. Now if you turn around (reverse vectors) the sum of = >the vectors is A>C + C>A =3D 0 for x, y and z and T =3D 2(t1 + t2) if = >you maintain ANY constant frame of reference. I'm afraid this doesn't quite apply with FTL time-vectors because the only way to measure the magnitude of the vector is to find something that is frame-independant. You can't say A>B when in some other frame B>A. The frame-independant number here is (t^2 - x^2). Because (for FTL travel) x>t, this "vector" is negative. The sub-light vectors are all positive. I'm combining two "negative" vectors and one "positive" vector to get a net negative vector; delta t<0, delta x=0. This is true for ALL frames. >Every description of a causality paradox I have ever read seems to have = >included a change of frame of reference for no logical reason. It seems = >to me that the mistake is in the change of frames! Any set of events must be explainable in ANY set of frames. That's the fundamental principle of relativity. If the same thing looks different in two different frames then there's a logical error involved. >If you look at this my way and maintain an Earth frame of reference: > >Bright leaves at t=3D0y and arrives at t=3D0.0082y, Dwight leaves at = >t=3D0.0082y travels on same vector for some arbitrary time, let's pick = >0.0003y, then reverses his vector and travels back to Earth. He will = >arrive at Earth at t=3D(0.0082+0.0003)+(0.0082+0.0003). All this assumes = >an Earth observer's frame of reference which is the ONLY ONE THAT = >MATTERS. > >So where did I goof? I still don't get it... We're talking apples and oranges here. The FTL trip that Dwight takes in your example ( let's call it 'L') is not the same one he takes in my example (let's call it 'K'). From Earth's perspective, Dwight's K trip takes him backwards in time. From Earth's perspective, Dwight's L trip doesn't. Therefore, these are different trips we're describing. Now,you may be thinking, ah hah - if you stay on Earth, 'K' takes Dwight backwards in time! Therefore his FTL trip must not be allowable. I agree with you perfectly. But as I pointed out, in Dwight's frame of reference, HIS FTL trip is IDENTICAL to Bright's FTL trip. Therefore, if you're going to disallow HIS trip, you also have to disallow Bright's trip, and therefore disallow FTL. This, I think, is the correct conclusion to draw. Although certain FTL journeys may seem fine in some frames, in others it will inevitably take you back in time. If you want to stay in the same frame the whole time, it's possible to think you're sheltering yourself from paradoxes by not allowing any backwards-in-time travel in Your frame. But that's a frame-dependant physics you're describing, where the rules in your frame (no backwards-in-time travel) don't apply to any other frame. In other words, that's saying that there IS an ether, a preferred frame, in which you can avoid paradoxes. That's saying you can make paradoxes in other frames, but that's okay, because you can't ever translate it to a paradox on Earth. But this doesn't solve the problem: If you have a colony in a spaceship, travelling away from Earth at a sub-light velocity, what happens when a Paradox happens to them? Once you allow FTL, the philosophical dilemmas just keep on coming... Hope that was more illuminating than confusing! Ken From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 24 18:18 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4377" "Wed" "25" "June" "1997" "03:16:44" "+0200" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "79" "starship-design: Re: Fun With SpaceTime" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id SAA02004 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 18:18:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA01992 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 18:17:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-020.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0wgghQ-000FBcC; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 03:16:44 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 4376 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Fun With SpaceTime Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 03:16:44 +0200 (MET DST) Ken explains to Lee: >The key issue here is that these two points in space-time -- (0, 0) and >(4.3, 0.0087) -- are "space-like points": Delta x (0.43) is greater than >Delta t (0.0087). This means that there is no other reference frame where >the two points in space-time switch in spatial orientation; no matter where >you view this from, the arrival will always be further in the x-direction >than the departure. > >But these two points are NOT "time-like points" (Delta t is not greater >than Delta x), which means that there ARE some reference frames where these >two points switch in temporal orientation. For some observers, the arrival >happens BEFORE the departure. There is a "magical" reference frame -- one >travelling from Earth to Alpha Centauri at a sub-light speed (only 1/500th >of the speed of light) that sees the two events (arrival and departure) >happen at EXACTLY the same time. The perceived velocity is infinite. For >a reference frame travelling faster than this (say 1/400th of the speed of >light) the travel appears to go in the other direction. Do I understand correctly: Is this because the light takes a finite time to reach the observer? And if you would reckon with the time it took for the light to reach the observer, would you be able to configure the right order of the events? If so, I don't understand the fuzz about it. If not, I don't understand at all (and can you explain in a different way?). >Now, despite all the other problems that come along with this (infinite >energy, which way is she really going, etc.) This can lead to a causality >problem if you have a young man named Dwight travelling back to Earth. If >you can travel backwards in time in one reference frame, given the >priniciple that all reference frames are equivalent, you can also travel >backwards in time in Earth's reference frame. You don't really travel back in time, some observers just think they see you travel back in time. But if they would do their homework (reverse calculate while including distances and time intervals), they would see what happened first and what happened last. >This is how it could work: Dwight can pick up a message from Bright at >Alpha Centauri, leisurely get into his FTL ship, and accelerate it AWAY >Earth so it's travelling, say 1/10th the speed of light. Now, from his >perspective (in his reference frame) Bright's departure from Earth hasn't >even happened yet, although her arrival at Alpha Centauri has. From his >reference frame (signified by primed coordinates), the (x',t') of Bright's >departure is now at (-3.87, 0.38) [the math here is a simple Lorentz >Transformation into the new reference frame, available in any relativity >book -- his (x', t') location is defined to be (0, 0), equivalent to the >(x=4.3, t=0.0087) of Bright's arrival] All he's doing is going into a >reference frame where Bright's FTL trip seems to go in the opposite >direction. > >Now, given that he can do all this in less than 0.38 years, and not travel >too far in the wrong direction, at this point he can turn the ship around >and makes the same FTL jump that Bright did -- travelling 500c from his new >reference frame toward Earth. He will arrive back at Earth (in the primed >coordinate system) at (x'=-3.87, t'=3.87/500 = 0.008). But Bright doesn't >leave until (-3.87, 0.38)! So he gets there before Bright left in the >first place, hands her the letter, at which point she decides not to go to >Alpha Centauri after all. Nice paradox. > >If you believe that nature will somehow find a stable variant to this >paradox then you can't believe in free will. I'd rather believe that this >paradox can't happen in the first place. But who knows... I'd think the paradox isn't there, because it has several false observations: - When Dwight meets Bright on Alpha Centauri, he'll also see an image of Earth where Bright has not left (that image has been traveling for 3.0087 years). - With this info he already can figure out that something is strange here. - When he still decides to travel FTL to Earth to stop Bright from leaving, he will meet her light-image (that she reflected during her trip to AC) all the way, until some small distance from Earth where the image suddenly changes from "Bright going into FTL" to "Bright suddenly being disappeared". Timothy From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 24 18:38 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["898" "Wed" "25" "June" "1997" "03:38:22" "+0200" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "37" "starship-design: Missing letter or paradox?" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id SAA06959 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 18:38:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA06926 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 18:38:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-020.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0wgh2M-000FClC; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 03:38:22 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 897 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Missing letter or paradox? Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 03:38:22 +0200 (MET DST) Lately it seems that I've not received a few (three) letters from SD. This may be because: 1) The connection between the SD-server and my provider is not good. or 2) Some person A replies to person B while sending the letter only to person B and not to SD. Then person B replies to A while quoting the original letter and sends it to SD. The result is that I miss the first letter. Action to be taken: 1) Pray to the holy God of the internet universe. 2) Ask the people of the mailing list to pay extra attention when replying a letter. That is, they should sent it to SD not to the author (this seems to be a standard setting in some mail-programs). Lastest case to be known: Ken quoted: >Okay here is where you lost me. WHY did you change frames of reference? which was apperently written by Lee. However I never did receive a letter from Lee that had that line in it. Timothy From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 24 19:07 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4545" "Tue" "24" "June" "1997" "21:01:55" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "71" "RE: starship-design: More Fun with Spacetime" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id TAA14834 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 19:07:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA14798 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 19:07:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p0.gnt.com [204.49.68.205]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA16513 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:07:11 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC80E2.93795D60@x2p24.gnt.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:07:08 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC80E2.93795D60@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id TAA14808 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 4544 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'Ken Wharton'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: More Fun with Spacetime Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:01:55 -0500 Ken, Thanks for trying... but I still don't get it! My problem is identical to contemporary physicists when Michaelson and Morley proved that the speed of light was the same in ALL inertial frames - "that's impossible". Oh, I follow the math alright, its just the concept which gets me. I have to believe that we are formulating our hypothesis incorrectly or something, that it is a semantic error not a mathematical one. The mathematical equivalent of what is being said here semantically is that 1+1= -(3)! Something else that I have a problem with was the statement: >Now, despite all the other problems that come along with this (infinite >energy, which way is she really going, etc.) This can lead to a causality >problem if you have a young man named Dwight travelling back to Earth. If >you can travel backwards in time in one reference frame, given the >priniciple that all reference frames are equivalent, you can also travel >backwards in time in Earth's reference frame. I hope what you mean by this is that you can seem to travel backwards in time from an observer in Earth's reference frame, not that you do this in one frame, that in another and that they are both the same despite the fact that they patently are not! Apples are NOT oranges I don't care who says their frames of reference are the same! Timothy (in a later post) is apparently of like mind. I get the math but I don't like what it is telling me. Lee, >Okay here is where you lost me. WHY did you change frames of reference? I needed to prove that Adding a normal sub-light vector (Dwight's wrong-way trip) with two identical FTL vectors (Bright and Dwight's FTL trip) can wind you up with a net spatial movement of zero, and a net time movement back in time. This can also be done without the extra sub-light vector, but then the two FTL vectors will be different, and the one that takes you "back in time" will of course seem counter-intuitive. If I tried to go that route, you would say that only one "type" of FTL travel was possible, when in fact the two journeys were identical from different frames. [L. Parker] what I want to see is a time travel paradox using only one frame of reference, It doesn't really matter whether you use FTL or not that just makes it easier to cause the paradox from my understanding. I want to see that it is not a matter of "substitution error" caused by the change of frame, because I am not so sure that all frames are or must be equal. In order to spell this out more clearly, I only used one "type" of FTL journey -- 500c from the current frame of the ship. In both of the FTL legs, from Dwight's perspective, the time at Earth advances in a positive direction. This way you can't say that the FTL is taking Dwight back in time and disallow it on those grounds alone. The back-in-time leg was the sub-light journey that Dwight starts out with! [L. Parker] Woa! How does this sub-light leg end up having a negative time component? I can see how it might APPEAR to, but it isn't really negative. His journey away from Earth at 0.4c is the only vector in which time seems to "go backwards" at Earth. But combined with FTL, this strange but well-established aspect of time -- where a far away event can seem to go backwards in time as you accelerate away from it -- can turn itself into a paradox. With FTL you CAN create a net-negative time travel vector. [L. Parker] Experimental test: Suppossedly, physicists have used the Casimir Effect to reduce the vacuum energy sufficiently between to grounded superconductiing plates to transmit a photon through the space between them. very slightly faster, some number times 10 ^-27. The point is IF FTL produces time travel it should be possible to construct this experiment in such a way to measure it. Any set of events must be explainable in ANY set of frames. That's the fundamental principle of relativity. If the same thing looks different in two different frames then there's a logical error involved. [L. Parker] I guess that is my fundamental objection, and I know it was Einstein's basic insight. However, I just don't believe (quite) this frames business. I sent Steve a quote a few days ago from Einstein complaining about Quantum Theory (it just didn't make sense to him), I feel the same way about some parts of relativity. Hope that was more illuminating than confusing! Ken [L. Parker] If we have flashlights, why don't we have flashdarks? (Hint, according to relativity we do.) Lee Parker From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 24 19:11 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1335" "Tue" "24" "June" "1997" "21:10:43" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "43" "RE: starship-design: Missing letter or paradox?" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id TAA15425 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 19:11:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA15398 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 19:11:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p0.gnt.com [204.49.68.205]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA16712 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:11:00 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC80E3.1D091FC0@x2p24.gnt.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:10:59 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC80E3.1D091FC0@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id TAA15402 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1334 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'Timothy van der Linden'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Missing letter or paradox? Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:10:43 -0500 Lately it seems that I've not received a few (three) letters from SD. This may be because: 1) The connection between the SD-server and my provider is not good. or 2) Some person A replies to person B while sending the letter only to person B and not to SD. Then person B replies to A while quoting the original letter and sends it to SD. The result is that I miss the first letter. [L. Parker] Actually, that was my fault, I think I used "Reply To:" instead of "Reply to All:". Interestingly enough, your reply to the message you quoted contained text from a letter from Ken to me that I never saw! Not only that, but I noticed extra characters showed up in some of my formulas... I think Ken is sending mail via a courier service named "Bright Mail" and the letters are arriving before they were written . Lee Action to be taken: 1) Pray to the holy God of the internet universe. 2) Ask the people of the mailing list to pay extra attention when replying a letter. That is, they should sent it to SD not to the author (this seems to be a standard setting in some mail-programs). Lastest case to be known: Ken quoted: >Okay here is where you lost me. WHY did you change frames of reference? which was apperently written by Lee. However I never did receive a letter from Lee that had that line in it. Timothy From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 24 20:13 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5070" "Tue" "24" "June" "1997" "21:31:38" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "34" "starship-design: More fun with Bright and Dwight" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id UAA00382 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:13:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA00361 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:13:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p0.gnt.com [204.49.68.205]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA20912 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 22:13:48 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC80EB.E0FA4820@x2p24.gnt.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 22:13:43 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC80EB.E0FA4820@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id UAA00362 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Length: 5069 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: More fun with Bright and Dwight Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:31:38 -0500 This came from the web... When you have a paradox that won't go away easily, you design a thought experiment to look at that paradox as closely as possible. Then either the paradox goes away, or you have a good disproof of the theory. So let's look more closely at this both-of-us-see-each-other's-clocks-going-slow business. Thought Experiment #1: You're on Earth, and I fly by in a rocket. Right as we pass each other, we both start our stopwatches. When your stopwatch says that one minute has passed, you check my stopwatch. Because I'm in a different frame, my watch is running slow: it only says thirty seconds. Now let's play that exact situation back from my frame. You looked at me after only thirty seconds; but your clock was running slow, so it said only fifteen seconds. CONTRADICTION! We agree that when you looked at me, my watch said thirty seconds: but did your watch say fifteen seconds (as I thought), or sixty (as you thought)? So we have taken what we intuitively felt made no sense, and exploited that to come up with a paradox that will test relativity: if there isn't a way out of that paradox, Relativity fails. So, as you probably suspected, there is a way out of the paradox. The problem, as with most of modern Physics, comes in making the measurement. Suppose that when I passed you the first time, and we synchronized our watches, we were right next to each other. That means that sixty seconds later (your frame), when you checked my watch, I was a long way away. How do you look at my watch a long way away? Your eyes take in light that bounced off it; your ears take in sound coming from it; whatever you do, you're using something that travelled from me to you. And it took time to do it. The point is, you can't say "I'm looking at his watch now." You have to say "I'm looking at light that came from his watch a while ago," and I have to say the same thing when I look at you. So when you and I are in different places, whatever we see about each other is old news. And we have to take that into account when we say "This is what I'm seeing on his watch," admitting that this is simply what his watch used to say. When we take that into account, we can plug through the math of Einstein's equations and we wind up without a paradox. Well, that was a sneaky way out. Looks like we can't disprove Relativity unless we can make measurements from the same place, at the same time, twice! Which we clearly can't do if one of us is moving, right? Well ? [L Parker] I think this is one of the reasons that Einstein disliked QED, IT CAN provide a method for instantaneous, simultaneous measurement at a distance, and I'm sure he suspected it...back to the story: Thought Experiment #2: The Paradox of the Twin. When paradoxes have their own names, they tend to be pretty simple. So it is with this one; the Paradox of the Twin is actually simpler than the experiment I discussed above, although you will see how it comes in response to that one. Two twin brothers, Astro and Clay, bid a tearful farewell as Astro journeys into space. Astro is gone for twenty earth years, but because he is moving so incredibly fast, his clock is running very slowly and only a year passes in his own frame. When he returns, Clay is gray-haired and wrinkly, while Astro is still young and healthy. Based on Relativity, it makes perfect sense to say that less time passed for Astro because his clock was running slow. But then you can ask, what happened from Astro's perspective? He wasn't moving, and Earth was; so Clay's clock was moving slowly; so shouldn't Clay be the young one? CONTRADICTION. Think about that for a while. Does Einstein have a way to wriggle out of this one? As before, yes, he does; and yes, it's sneaky and weird. Astro doesn't have a reference frame. You can't look at things from his perspective, because he turned around in mid-flight. I mentioned earlier that an inertial frame means one which keeps on travelling at a constant speed. When Astro turned around; when he lost his stomach because the rocket was suddenly stopping and starting up again in the other direction; he should have realized that he was now in a different inertial reference frame from the one he started in. So all bets are off, as far as Special Relativity is concerned. Clay's perspective tells the true story, and for Astro to calculate his brother's age, he has to take his reference-frame-change into account in his calculations. When he does, he will get the same result Clay got: young Astro, old Clay. [L Parker] This is the flaw with Ken arguement as Timothy points out. The theory depends on an inertial frame and does not hold up for non-inertial frames... Lee Parker "This double nature of radiation (and of material corpuscles) is a major property of reality, which has been interpreted by quantum-mechanics in an ingenious and amazingly successful fashion. This interpretation, which is looked upon as essentially final by almost all contemporary physicists, appears to me as only a temporary way out." Albert Einstein From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 24 20:13 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5227" "Tue" "24" "June" "1997" "22:05:16" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "71" "starship-design: Constant 1 g Acceleration" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id UAA00428 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:13:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA00407 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:13:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p0.gnt.com [204.49.68.205]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA20917 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 22:13:54 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC80EB.E5542C60@x2p24.gnt.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 22:13:51 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC80EB.E5542C60@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id UAA00417 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 5226 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Constant 1 g Acceleration Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 22:05:16 -0500 Okay, I chickened out and didn't write a program, but here is the next best thing... Original by Philip Gibbs 21-September-1996 The Relativistic Rocket The theory of relativity sets a severe limit to our ability to explore the galaxy in space-ships. As an object approaches the speed of light more and more energy is needed to accelerate it further. To reach the speed of light an infinite amount of energy would be required. It seems that the speed of light is an absolute barrier which cannot be reached or surpassed by massive objects. Given that the galaxy is about 100,000 light years across there seems little hope for us to get very far in galactic terms unless we can overcome our own mortality. Science fiction writers can make use of wormholes, or warp drives to overcome this restriction but it is not clear that such things can ever be made to work in reality. Another way to get round the problem may be to use the relativistic effects of time dilation and length contraction to cover large distances within a reasonable time span for those aboard a space-ship. If a rocket accelerates at 1g (9.81 m/s2) the crew will experience the equivalence of a gravitational field the same as that on Earth. If this could be maintained for long enough they would eventually receive the benefits of the relativistic effects which improve the effective rate of travel. What then, are the appropriate equations for the relativistic rocket? First of all we need to be clear what we mean by continuous acceleration at 1g. The acceleration of the rocket must be measured at any given instant in a non-accelerating frame of reference travelling at the same instantaneous speed as the rocket. This acceleration will be denoted by a. The proper time as measured by the crew of the rocket will be denoted by T and the time as measured in a the non-accelerating frame of reference in which they started will be denoted by t. We assume that the stars are essentially at rest in this frame. The distance covered as measured in this frame of reference will be denoted by d and the speed v. The time dilation or length contraction factor at any instant is gamma The relativistic equations for a rocket with constant acceleration a are, c a t = - sinh - T a c 2 2 c c 2 d = - ( cosh(aT/c) - 1 ) = - ( sqrt[ 1 + (at/c) ] - 1 ) a a a 2 v = c tanh - T = at / sqrt[ 1 + (at/c) ] c a 2 gamma = cosh - T = sqrt[ 1 + (at/c) ] c To do some example calculations it is easy to use units of years and light years. Then c = 1 and g = 1.03. Here are some typical answers for a = 1g. T t d v gamma 1 year 1.19 yrs 0.56 lyrs 0.77c 1.58 2 3.75 2.90 0.97 3.99 5 83.7 82.7 0.99993 86.2 8 1,840 1,840 0.9999998 1,890 12 113,000 113,000 0.99999999996 117,000 So in theory you can travel across the galaxy in just 12 years of your own time. If you want to arrive at your destination and stop then you will have to turn your rocket round half way and decelerate at 1g. In that case it will take nearly twice as long for the longer journeys. Here are some of the apparent times required to get to a few well-known spacemarks to arrive at low speed: 4.3 ly nearest star: 3.6 years 30,000 ly Center of our galaxy: 21 years 2,000,000 ly Andromeda galaxy: 29 years For distances bigger than about a billion light years the formulas given here are inadequate because the universe is expanding. General Relativity would have to be used to work out those cases. Sadly there are a few technical difficulties you will have to overcome before you can head off into space. One is to create your propulsion system and generate the fuel. The most efficient self contained rocket system which is possible is a matter/anti-matter photon drive. Matter and anti-matter fuel are allowed to annihilate and the gamma rays are directed out the back (somehow) to propel the rocket forward. Even then the ratio of the mass of fuel used M to the mass of the payload of the rocket m is given by M/m = gamma v/c. Conservation of momentum forbids you to do any better than this with a self contained drive carrying all its own fuel. The next problem you have to solve is shielding. As you approach the speed of light you will be heading into an increasingly energetic and intense bombardment of cosmic rays and other particles. After only a few years of 1g acceleration even the cosmic background radiation is Doppler shifted into a lethal heat bath hot enough to melt all known materials. So as we can easily see, the near stars are nearer than they appear and the far stars are even closer than that! All we need is a drive that can accelerate our ship at a constant 1 g for 12 to 24 years.... Lee Parker From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 24 20:45 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["8461" "Tue" "24" "June" "1997" "22:44:01" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "49" "starship-design: Quantum Gravity" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id UAA07634 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA07617 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:45:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p0.gnt.com [204.49.68.205]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA23074 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 22:45:43 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC80F0.5652BAE0@x2p24.gnt.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 22:45:38 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC80F0.5652BAE0@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id UAA07621 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Length: 8460 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Quantum Gravity Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 22:44:01 -0500 I apologize if this is old news to anybody, but it sounds interesting since it relates (slightly) to this group's objective - Theory of Quantum Gravity Predicts Space Has a Discrete "Atomic" Structure The first experimentally testable prediction about the quantum structure of the geometry of space has been produced by physicists developing a theory of quantum gravity. Carlo Rovelli, professor of physics at the University of Pittsburgh, and Lee Smolin, professor of physics at Penn State and visiting member of the Institute for Advanced Study, describe their discovery in a paper published in a recent issue of the journal Nuclear Physics B. They discovered that the theory of quantum gravity requires that space, like ordinary matter, is not continuous but is made of a network of discrete elements. Rovelli and Smolin say the size of these elements is 10-33 centimeters-20 orders of magnitude smaller than the nucleus of an atom. The idea that space and time may not be continuous but are built, like matter, from very tiny "atomic building blocks" is not new-it was proposed previously by Roger Penrose, of Oxford University and Penn State, and other physicists and mathematicians. The work of Rovelli and Smolin is, however, the first to show that these discrete structures are required by the laws of quantum mechanics and relativity theory. "Just as an atom can have only a certain discrete set of energy levels, the results of geometrical measurements must come in discrete units," Smolin explains. In other words, measurements of the area or volume of any region in space cannot be just any number but must lie in certain sets of discrete numbers, which the calculations of Rovelli and Smolin are able to predict. "One way to describe these predictions is that the geometry of space itself is made out of discrete quanta analogous to the photons of light or the electron shells of the atom," Smolin explains. Although no instrument exists today that actually can measure small enough areas or volumes to see the discrete structures they predict, Smolin says "We are confident about these predictions and believe they could be tested sometime in the future." Rovelli adds, "That is what one wants in science-to make definite predictions that could lead to confirmation of whether a theory is right or wrong." Scientists have been looking for the right theory of quantum gravity to complete the revolutionary picture of nature begun early in this century with the invention of quantum mechanics, the modern theory of matter, and Einstein's theory of general relativity, the modern concept of space and time. "The unification of these two theories remains one of the key unsolved scientific problems," Rovelli explains. Rovelli and Smolin's discovery of the atomic structure of the geometry of space is the result of a seven-year collaboration, which they say is built on a breakthrough discovery in 1986 by Abhay Ashtekar, Holder of the Eberly Family Chair in Physics and Director of the Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry at Penn State. Ashtekar discovered that the equations of Einstein's general theory of relativity could be translated into a much simpler form, making it easier to combine relativity with quantum mechanics. "Ashtekar's work was the breakthrough that has enabled us and others to finally make progress on this problem," Smolin says. The following year, Smolin and Ted Jacobson, professor of physics at the University of Maryland, discovered that Ashtekar's form of the theory could be used to solve the equations of quantum gravity for the first time. These solutions showed that the gravitational field could be seen in a new perspective. "Instead of thinking of the quantum unit of gravity as a particle or a wave, we describe the geometry of space as patterns of closed loops-the lines of force of the gravitational field," Smolin says. "The gravitational field has lines of force just like the lines of magnetic force around a bar magnet," Rovelli explains. These gravitational lines of force are the basis for the "loop representation" picture of quantum gravity that Rovelli and Smolin invented in 1988, which is the basis of their predictions about the atomic nature of space. "The way the lines of force form loops that knot and link and meet each other is the basis for the quantum description of the geometry of space we have discovered," Smolin explains. Rovelli and Smolin explain they use the word "loops" because the lines of gravitational force always form loops when there is no matter around. According to the physicists, Einstein's theory of relativity allows space to have a geometry even where there is no matter. "Where there is matter, the gravitational lines of force end on the matter," Rovelli explains, just as magnetic lines of force end on the poles of a magnet. He says lines of magnetic force in empty space form loops, as well. Rovelli and Smolin's calculations also reveal that these quantum loops of space must be linked together in networks called spin networks, which look like an electric-circuit diagram-a pattern of lines joined to each other at various points, or nodes. The lines and nodes in spin networks are labeled by geometric quantities, such as units of area and volume, rather than by voltages and resistances, as in circuit diagrams. "Spin networks are the quantum states of gravity just as electron shells are the quantum states of the atom," Rovelli explains. "Roger Penrose dreamed up spin networks 30 years ago as a beautiful picture of the quantum-mechanical geometry of space," Smolin says. He describes Penrose, the Francis R. Pentz and Helen M. Pentz Distinguished Visiting Professor of Physics and Mathematics at Penn State, as perhaps the most influential and creative relativity theorist living today. "Now our calculations have rediscovered these same wonderful structures mathematically, vindicating Roger's intuition that spin networks describe configurations of the basic building blocks of the geometry of space," Smolin says. Rovelli and Smolin suspect that, if the loop representation approach to quantum gravity turns out to be correct, it will have implications for other key unsolved problems. "In many theories in physics there are situations in which you try to make a physical prediction but you get an infinite quantity," Smolin explains. These infinite quantities are very troubling to scientists studying such things as the early universe, black holes, and other areas of physics. "If the loop representation is right about this prediction, then the infinities simply are not there because nothing can be infinitely small," Rovelli explains. "The networks of loops define space, they are not in it, so nothing can be smaller than them," says Smolin. The two theorists are investigating the relationship of their results to other approaches to quantum gravity-particularly string theory. "String theory is the only other approach to quantum gravity to have yielded definite physical predictions," Smolin says. "The loops in our theory are not strings, but there are deep connections between the two approaches that are most intriguing." This research was supported partially by the National Science Foundation and by Penn State. Barbara K. Kennedy Note: This past May, an error was found in one of the calculations of Rovelli and Smolin that changed the values of some of the "units" of quantized volume, without changing the basic result that the volumes and areas are quantized. The error was detected by Renata Loll, a young German physicist who had been a postdoctoral fellow in the Penn State Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry and is now a postdoctoral fellow in Florence, Italy. She did the calculation using a different method from the one used by Rovelli and Smolin. Looking back at their calculations, Rovelli and Smolin found they had made an error in the sign of a term in the expressions for the units of volume. In another recent development, the prediction that areas should be quantized has been used by another group of physicists as the basis of calculations in which they make new predictions about radiation emitted from black holes. Lee Parker Long experience has taught me not to believe in the limitations indicated by purely theoretical considerations. These - as we well know - are based on insufficient knowledge of all the relevant factors." Guglielmo Marconi From owner-starship-design Tue Jun 24 23:25 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1020" "Wed" "25" "June" "1997" "01:14:02" "-0500" "\"Kevin \\\"Tex\\\" Houston\"" "hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu" nil "28" "starship-design: ZPF=inertia=gravity" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id XAA12487 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 23:24:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mhub2.tc.umn.edu (0@mhub2.tc.umn.edu [128.101.131.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id XAA12471 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 23:24:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maroon.tc.umn.edu by mhub2.tc.umn.edu; Wed, 25 Jun 97 01:24:57 -0500 Received: from pub-30-a-132.dialup.umn.edu by maroon.tc.umn.edu; Wed, 25 Jun 97 01:24:55 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33B0B729.6E61@maroon.tc.umn.edu> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kevin \"Tex\" Houston" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1019 From: "Kevin \"Tex\" Houston" Sender: owner-starship-design To: Starship design group Subject: starship-design: ZPF=inertia=gravity Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 01:14:02 -0500 http://www.jse.com/haisch/sciences.html Hey, I just stumbled across this site, and it shows a promising lead in the developement of "inertialess drives" (acceleration without the resistance). "Reactionless drives", (inertia without acceleration) and gravity. The basic thrust, is that all inertia/gravity is simply an EM interaction between charged particles (at the quark level) and the ZPF (Zero Point Field). If so, this might give us a way to control the inertial mass of an object with an EM field. Impulse engines anyone?? Such control would allow spaceships to make 90 degree turns at 90% light speed, and not disappear into a fine cloud of vapor. It could also give you something to "push" against. The fact that it is connected with the ZPF is astounding. -- Kevin "Tex" Houston http://umn.edu/~hous0042/index.html Webmaster http://www.urly-bird.com/index.html "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." A. Einstein From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 25 05:54 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1193" "Wed" "25" "June" "1997" "14:51:44" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "43" "Re: starship-design: Missing letter or paradox?" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id FAA21617 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 05:54:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id FAA21604 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 05:53:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA00498; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:51:44 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706251251.OAA00498@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1192 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: Missing letter or paradox? Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:51:44 +0200 (MET DST) > From owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu Wed Jun 25 03:39:32 1997 > From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) > > Lately it seems that I've not received a few (three) letters from SD. > > This may be because: > > 1) The connection between the SD-server and my provider is not good. > > or > > 2) Some person A replies to person B while sending the letter only to > person B and not to SD. Then person B replies to A while quoting the > original letter and sends it to SD. The result is that I miss the first > letter. > > Action to be taken: > > 1) Pray to the holy God of the internet universe. > > 2) Ask the people of the mailing list to pay extra attention when replying a > letter. That is, they should sent it to SD not to the author (this seems to > be a standard setting in some mail-programs). > > Lastest case to be known: > > Ken quoted: > > >Okay here is where you lost me. WHY did you change frames of reference? > > which was apperently written by Lee. However I never did receive a letter > from Lee that had that line in it. > > Timothy > Me too! Forgive me the sin against the netiquette, but the problem is important... -- Zenon From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 25 06:21 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1983" "Wed" "25" "June" "1997" "08:18:38" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "41" "RE: starship-design: ZPF=inertia=gravity" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id GAA25958 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 06:21:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id GAA25906 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 06:21:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p32.gnt.com [204.49.68.237]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA13973 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 08:21:52 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC8140.D4571C60@x2p24.gnt.com>; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 08:21:49 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC8140.D4571C60@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id GAA25920 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1982 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: ZPF=inertia=gravity Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 08:18:38 -0500 Kevin, I read a paper that Puthoff published on this several years ago. It is beginning to sound like space has a "structure" no matter which way you look at it. It is a long ways from figuring out what inertia is to controlling it however. For instance, interfering with inertia could be the same thing as a Klingon Disintegrator . Several other new developents with Vacuum Fluctuation theory are also intriguing. Several physicists claim that the universe was created by a vacuum fluctuation that passed some critical threshold and became the universe. Of course this means there are new universes being created all the time! In fact, our universe may be nothing more than somebody's Physics 201 lab that got out of hand. (Be careful Kyle). In another paper it was asserted that the virtual particles that become real particles are not subject to any sort of limiting amount, in other words we can have a single photon suddenly appear...or Zeta Triangularis. (Be Careful Kyle) Lee Parker -----Original Message----- From: Kevin "Tex" Houston [SMTP:hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 1997 1:14 AM To: Starship design group Subject: starship-design: ZPF=inertia=gravity http://www.jse.com/haisch/sciences.html Hey, I just stumbled across this site, and it shows a promising lead in the developement of "inertialess drives" (acceleration without the resistance). "Reactionless drives", (inertia without acceleration) and gravity. The basic thrust, is that all inertia/gravity is simply an EM interaction between charged particles (at the quark level) and the ZPF (Zero Point Field). If so, this might give us a way to control the inertial mass of an object with an EM field. Impulse engines anyone?? Such control would allow spaceships to make 90 degree turns at 90% light speed, and not disappear into a fine cloud of vapor. It could also give you something to "push" against. The fact that it is connected with the ZPF is astounding. From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 25 08:44 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1181" "Wed" "25" "June" "1997" "17:41:57" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "30" "Re: starship-design: Quantum Gravity" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id IAA29364 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 08:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA29338 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 08:43:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA00885; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 17:41:57 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706251541.RAA00885@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1180 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: Quantum Gravity Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 17:41:57 +0200 (MET DST) > From: "L. Parker" > To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" > > I apologize if this is old news to anybody, but it sounds interesting > since it relates (slightly) to this group's objective - > > [...] > > The idea that space and time may not be continuous but are built, > like matter, from very tiny "atomic building blocks" is not new-it was > proposed previously by Roger Penrose, of Oxford University and Penn State, > and other physicists and mathematicians. The work of Rovelli and Smolin > is, however, the first to show that these discrete structures are required > by the laws of quantum mechanics and relativity theory. > > [...] > If that proves to be true (whatever "true" exactly means), it will relate to our objective quite significantly. Namely, it will mean that our Universe is like a 3(or more)-D cellular automaton (just like a giant version of Conway's game "Life"), which in turn will mean that FTL is really impossible (and explain why - you cannot shift bits in your computer faster than one tick of your master clock...). Moreover, then all will have to go digital... ;-)) -- Zenon From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 25 09:06 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil] ["704" "Wed" "25" "June" "1997" "10:54:21" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" "<01BC8157.C9295BC0@x2p24.gnt.com>" "19" "RE: starship-design: Quantum Gravity" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id JAA07633 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:06:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id JAA07612 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:06:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p24.gnt.com [204.49.68.229]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA22219 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:06:12 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC8157.C9295BC0@x2p24.gnt.com>; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:06:09 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC8157.C9295BC0@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id JAA07614 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 703 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Quantum Gravity Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:54:21 -0500 -----Original Message----- > If that proves to be true (whatever "true" exactly means), it will relate to our objective quite significantly. Namely, it will mean that our Universe is like a 3(or more)-D cellular automaton (just like a giant version of Conway's game "Life"), which in turn will mean that FTL is really impossible (and explain why - you cannot shift bits in your computer faster than one tick of your master clock...). Moreover, then all will have to go digital... ;-)) -- Zenon [L. Parker] Not only does this threaten to replace large chunks of quantum theory but also Relativity, it means there is at least one fixed Frame of Reference, what does that do to relativity theory? From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 25 09:30 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["993" "Wed" "25" "June" "1997" "09:30:42" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "22" "RE: starship-design: Quantum Gravity" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id JAA18720 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:30:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id JAA18699; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:30:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706251630.JAA18699@darkwing.uoregon.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <01BC8157.C9295BC0@x2p24.gnt.com> References: <01BC8157.C9295BC0@x2p24.gnt.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.32 under 19.15p6 XEmacs Lucid Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 992 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Quantum Gravity Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:30:42 -0700 (PDT) L. Parker writes: > Zenon Kulpa writes: > > If that proves to be true (whatever "true" exactly means), > > it will relate to our objective quite significantly. > > > Namely, it will mean that our Universe is like a 3(or more)-D > > cellular automaton (just like a giant version of Conway's game "Life"), > > which in turn will mean that FTL is really impossible > > (and explain why - you cannot shift bits in your computer > > faster than one tick of your master clock...). > > > Moreover, then all will have to go digital... ;-)) > [L. Parker] Not only does this threaten to replace large chunks of > quantum theory but also Relativity, it means there is at least one > fixed Frame of Reference, what does that do to relativity theory? It seems pretty clear from our experience so far that any purported preferred frame for the universe is awfully hard to detect. There is no reason that a cellular automaton theory of the universe would have to have a preferred frame. From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 25 10:44 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6949" "Wed" "25" "June" "1997" "10:44:36" "-0700" "Ken Wharton" "wharton@physics.ucla.edu" nil "122" "starship-design: Relativity is not measurement-based" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id KAA08503 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:44:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from physics.ucla.edu (physics.ucla.edu [128.97.23.13]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id KAA08459 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:44:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from watt by physics.ucla.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA23648; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:44:35 -0700 Received: by watt (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA16731; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:44:36 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706251744.KAA16731@watt> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 6948 From: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Relativity is not measurement-based Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:44:36 -0700 Whoa - lots of stuff here to respond to. Don't have time to do it all now, but I do need to make one point. Lee sends a web item: >So, as you probably suspected, there is a way out of the paradox. The pro= >blem, as with most of modern Physics, comes in making the measurement. Su= >ppose that when I passed you the first time, and we synchronized our watc= >hes, we were right next to each other. That means that sixty seconds late= >r (your frame), when you checked my watch, I was a long way away. How do = >you look at my watch a long way away? Your eyes take in light that bounce= >d off it; your ears take in sound coming from it; whatever you do, you're= > using something that travelled from me to you. And it took time to do it= >.=20 > >The point is, you can't say "I'm looking at his watch now." You have to s= >ay "I'm looking at light that came from his watch a while ago," and I hav= >e to say the same thing when I look at you. So when you and I are in diff= >erent places, whatever we see about each other is old news. And we have t= >o take that into account when we say "This is what I'm seeing on his watc= >h," admitting that this is simply what his watch used to say. When we tak= >e that into account, we can plug through the math of Einstein's equations= > and we wind up without a paradox.=20 This is simply incorrect. I'll explain the real way out of the paradox below. And Timothy asks a question along the same lines: >Do I understand correctly: >Is this because the light takes a finite time to reach the observer? >And if you would reckon with the time it took for the light to reach the >observer, would you be able to configure the right order of the events? > >If so, I don't understand the fuzz about it. >If not, I don't understand at all (and can you explain in a different way?). This is a common misperception of relativity; that it's only an effect of taking measurements at light speed. This is completely incorrect. For example, if a train's coming toward you at near lightspeed, the light from the beginning and the end of the train arrive at different times, making the train appear longer than it really is. That's a MEASUREMENT problem. As you may know, objects travelling fast actually get SHORTER, not longer. So IN REALITY, the fast train gets shorter, although it APPEARS longer to a stationary observer -- because he's measuring the ends of the train train at two different moments. These are two different effects; the first is relativity, the second comes from the measurement process. The first is a fundamental fact of nature, the second can be accounted for and removed. In my earlier Paradox example, all of these secondary, "measurement"-based effects have already been removed. This is a way to separate out the two effects -- in a thought experiment anyway. (This is a bit too impractical to do in real life). String out a bunch of cameras, with synchronized video, all the way between here and Alpha Centauri. Put them all in the rest frame of both planets. Call this Detector system #1. Then string out another set of cameras and call that Detector system # 2. Accelerate #2 to 0.4c moving away from Earth. You now have a detector system in two different frames. Now, although an observer at Earth can't see all the camera information at once, after everything happens an observer at Earth can patiently collect all of the camera information, complete with time-stamped frames, and recreate events AS THEY ACTUALLY HAPPENED, removing any effects caused by the finite speed of information. What's left is the actual situation produced by relativity, with all of the measurement problems removed. And this is the situation I was describing. All of my (space,time) coordinates are REAL; they're deduced after the fact with a 4.3 light-year detector system. So now, according to Timothy, I guess I'll have to explain it in a different way. Still, no matter how I explain it, the reason it will always seem counterintuitive is the issue of simultaneous events. There's no such thing. You see, every way I try to explain it will result in the (seeming) impossibility of Dwight thinking his journey takes him forward in time, while an observer at Earth seeing him travel backwards in time. To most of us, that makes no sense. You can't both go forward and backward in time with the same trip. Time, to us, is a stable medium. It makes intuitive sense to us that two different events that happen at the same time are somehow SPECIAL; that it is an objective fact that they DID happen at the same time. But this is not true. When we see events A and B happen at the same time, that is a subjective perception from our frame of reference. One observer (travelling one way) sees A happen before B. Another observer (travelling the other way) sees B happen before A. Who's right? Everyone. But how can this be? What if A causes B; how can the cause happen after the effect? That's the beauty of it. This "uncertain" time order can only happen for "space-like" points in space-time, as I defined them in my first iteration. This means they are separated by such a distance that a light beam can't get from one to the other in time. There can be no cause or effect; A and B can't exchange information. If A and B are close enough to exchange information, then they are "time-like", and the time-order becomes fixed; it's the spatial order that is now obeserver-dependant. But two "space-like" points CAN exchange information, of course, if you have FTL. Then you can travel from A to B, as Dwight does on the way home. But if some people see A happen first and some people see B, which way does the travel "really" go? Both ways. Everyone's always right. But unless our minds can come to grips with the idea that two points in space-time are not necessarily ordered in time (i.e. A does not always come "before" B), we'll never "believe" that this is true. This, btw, is the solution to the twin paradox. You can set up the string of cameras in that case as well. And when one twin is saying "how old is the other right NOW", his idea of "now" is not the same as the other twin. The two points in space time that are simultaneous for one twin are not simultaneous for the other. A tough concept, but once it's understood, all of relativity falls into place. And not just in the equations, as the web quote seemed to state. It can actually make sense in one's mental picture of reality. It's a different picture than the one we normally have, but considering it seems to bean accurate reflection of reality I think it's well worth the trouble. Let me know if that helped clear things up. Hopefully it will at least give us a place to focus our discussion: whether or not the time-order of any two points in space-time can be fixed. I'll try again tomorrow... Ken From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 25 11:21 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil] ["616" "Wed" "25" "June" "1997" "12:24:41" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" "<01BC816A.8494EC00@x2p24.gnt.com>" "14" "RE: starship-design: Quantum Gravity" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id LAA10444 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:21:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA10404 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:21:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p16.gnt.com [204.49.68.221]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA29778 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 13:21:07 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC816A.8494EC00@x2p24.gnt.com>; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 13:20:15 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC816A.8494EC00@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id LAA10412 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 615 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Quantum Gravity Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 12:24:41 -0500 Steve, Well if the Universe has a "fabric" or structure then the structure itself forms an invariant frame of reference. Unless of course, some one comes up with a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Reality....You can prove its there but you can't ever see it! Uh oh, this is starting to sound like Philosophy 401. Lee Parker L. Parker writes: > Zenon Kulpa writes: It seems pretty clear from our experience so far that any purported preferred frame for the universe is awfully hard to detect. There is no reason that a cellular automaton theory of the universe would have to have a preferred frame. From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 25 12:09 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1595" "Wed" "25" "June" "1997" "13:08:52" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "39" "Re: starship-design: Quantum Gravity" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id MAA29126 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 12:09:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA29081 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 12:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp2.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp2.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.74]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA16032 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 15:09:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33B17AD4.4378@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <199706251541.RAA00885@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1594 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Quantum Gravity Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 13:08:52 -0700 Zenon Kulpa wrote: > > > From: "L. Parker" > > To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" > > > > I apologize if this is old news to anybody, but it sounds interesting > > since it relates (slightly) to this group's objective - > > > > [...] > > > > The idea that space and time may not be continuous but are built, > > like matter, from very tiny "atomic building blocks" is not new-it was > > proposed previously by Roger Penrose, of Oxford University and Penn State, > > and other physicists and mathematicians. The work of Rovelli and Smolin > > is, however, the first to show that these discrete structures are required > > by the laws of quantum mechanics and relativity theory. > > > > [...] > > > If that proves to be true (whatever "true" exactly means), > it will relate to our objective quite significantly. Quite true. > > Namely, it will mean that our Universe is like a 3(or more)-D > cellular automaton (just like a giant version of Conway's game "Life"), > which in turn will mean that FTL is really impossible > (and explain why - you cannot shift bits in your computer > faster than one tick of your master clock...). The universe has no "clock" as far as we know. Besides, giving structure to the fabric of space would only strenghten FTL (Try walking in a vacuum). It gives you something to warp (Alcubierre's theory), somethingto push against (the Aether hypothesis), and alot of energy. Lee Parker is right though: it could be used badly. So lets use it for good (FTL Propulsion), not planet bombs. Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 25 12:14 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["174" "Wed" "25" "June" "1997" "13:59:54" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "8" "RE: starship-design: Relativity is not measurement-based" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id MAA02231 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 12:14:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA02220 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 12:14:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p27.gnt.com [204.49.68.232]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA00548 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:14:01 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC8171.F45DB240@x2p24.gnt.com>; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:13:29 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC8171.F45DB240@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id MAA02221 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 173 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Relativity is not measurement-based Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 13:59:54 -0500 Ken, Well I can intellectually grasp the idea that time is not a constant and that A does not necessarily precede B, but as you say, it is counter-intuitive. Lee Parker From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 25 16:16 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["973" "Thu" "26" "June" "1997" "01:16:22" "+0200" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "27" "starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id QAA18758 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 16:16:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA18736 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 16:16:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-013.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0wh1IU-000Fk4C; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 01:16:22 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 972 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 01:16:22 +0200 (MET DST) (I've tried sending this letter some hours earlier, but it doesn't seem to have reached SD) Zenon wrote: >If that [space and time being discrete] proves to >be true (whatever "true" exactly means), >it will relate to our objective quite significantly. > >Namely, it will mean that our Universe is like a 3(or more)-D >cellular automaton (just like a giant version of Conway's game "Life"), >which in turn will mean that FTL is really impossible >(and explain why - you cannot shift bits in your computer >faster than one tick of your master clock...). > >Moreover, then all will have to go digital... ;-)) Not necessarily, there may be something underneath space-time. That is, something that provides the building blocks for space-time. Just like nature provides ways to enhance the building blocks of today's computer (and thus allows to increase the speed of the masterclock, nature may also provide ways to enhance the velocity of information transfer. Timothy From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 25 16:16 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3570" "Thu" "26" "June" "1997" "01:16:19" "+0200" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "79" "starship-design: Increasingly less Fun with Spacetime" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id QAA18892 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 16:16:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA18869 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 16:16:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-013.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0wh1IR-000Fk2C; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 01:16:19 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 3569 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Increasingly less Fun with Spacetime Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 01:16:19 +0200 (MET DST) (I've tried sending this letter some hours earlier, but it doesn't seem to have reached SD) Ken replied to Lee: >In order to spell this out more clearly, I only used one "type" of FTL >journey -- 500c from the current frame of the ship. In both of the FTL >legs, from Dwight's perspective, the time at Earth advances in a positive >direction. This way you can't say that the FTL is taking Dwight back in >time and disallow it on those grounds alone. The back-in-time leg was the >sub-light journey that Dwight starts out with! His journey away from Earth >at 0.4c is the only vector in which time seems to "go backwards" at Earth. ??? As far as I understand time doesn't go backwards when you move, it just goes slower. >Now, this "back-in-time" behavior will happen with or without FTL. This >happens in the twin paradox when one twin turns around; the stationary twin >"sees" the other twin travel backwards in time. No, I don't think so: (The numbers between braces show the clockrate) With respect to the stationary twin, the moving twin's clock: - ticks at the same rate as the stationary clock before it leaves Earth. (1) - starts ticking slower during acceleration. (1->0.5) - ticks slowly forwards during the period of no acceleration. (0.5) - starts ticking faster when the ship decelerates. (0.5->1) - ticks at the same rate as the stationary clock when the ship has a zero relative velocity. (1) - starts ticking slower during acceleration towards Earth. (1->0.5) - ticks forwards at a slower rate during the period of no acceleration. (0.5) - starts ticking faster when the ship decelerates. (0.5->1) - has the same rate when his brother is back on Earth again. (1) With respect to the moving twin, the other twin's clock: - ticks at the same rate as the stationary clock before it leaves Earth. (1) - starts ticking slower during acceleration. (1->0.5) - ticks slowly forwards during the period of no acceleration. (0.5) - suddenly increases speed very much as soon as deceleration starts. (0.5->3) !The tick rate is much faster than a clock at rest! - keeps ticking very fast during the deceleration, but slowly decreases speeds until the moving twin has come to rest and then has the same tick rate as Earth's clock. (3->1) - starts ticking faster again when the twin accelerates towards Earth. (1->3) - drops it ticking rate quite suddenly when acceleration stops. (3->0.5) !The tick rate drops from going faster than normal to slower than normal! - ticks slowly forwards during the period of no acceleration. (0.5) - starts ticking faster when the twin decelerates (0.5->1) - has the same rate when his brother is back on Earth again. (1) So the stationary twin thinks his brother lived slower or equal all the time. But the moving twin thinks his brother first lived slower, than started living hyperfast, and finally slower again. However his brother lived hyperfast more than he lived slower, so the net result is that his brother lived faster. >But this is not a true >paradox, because by the time they catch up to each other, time has still >advanced for both of them; you can never get a net-negative time without >FTL. It isn't a paradox at all, as long as you point out all the facts. (Which I hope I did.) Timothy NB. I'm aware of unreal and real timedilation. In my previous messages I'm not confusing light-travel-time with timedilation. NB2. I believe Ken's multi-camera observing system is also called a freezed frame or a snapshot. My whole explanation above is in such frames of reference. From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 25 18:10 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7596" "Wed" "25" "June" "1997" "20:03:02" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "133" "starship-design: Even less Fun with Spacetime" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id SAA23695 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 18:10:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA23685 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 18:10:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p21.gnt.com [204.49.68.226]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA23679 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:10:30 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC81A3.D2BD3980@x2p24.gnt.com>; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:10:27 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC81A3.D2BD3980@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id SAA23687 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Length: 7595 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Even less Fun with Spacetime Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:03:02 -0500 Timothy, Never mind the fact that I don't believe this BUT, try this from the internet: You're standing on Earth as I go by in my rocket. When you look at my clock, you notice that it's running slowly because time runs slowly in my reference frame. When I look at your clock, what do I see? Is your clock running slow, fast, or right on time? Score yourself a "good try" point if you said that I see your clock running fast. But don't get too excited, because the actual answer is: I see your clock running slow. Just like you see my clock running slow. That's right, it was something of a trick question. It's the most natural thing in the world to think that if you see my clock running slow, I should see your clock running fast. But then you have to ask the question: when I flew by, who decided that you should be fast and I should be slow? Why not the other way around? After all, my frame (in which I'm not moving but you are) is just as valid as your frame (in which the Earth isn't moving but the rocket is). So, by symmetry, we must see the same thing! If you see my clock running slow, I have to see your clock running slow! Which proves I'm right; but it doesn't get us out of the paradox. It still doesn't make sense for us both to see each other's clocks moving slowly: if you're still with me, [I am] this should seriously bother you. (If you're not still with me, take a break and come back. Long paper, complicated subject.) [I took the break anyway] When you have a paradox that won't go away easily, you design a thought experiment to look at that paradox as closely as possible. Then either the paradox goes away, or you have a good disproof of the theory. So let's look more closely at this both-of-us-see- each-other's-clocks-going-slow business. Thought Experiment #1: You're on Earth, and I fly by in my rocket as before. Right as we pass each other, we both start our stopwatches. When your stopwatch says that one minute has passed, you check my stopwatch. Because I'm in a different frame, my watch is running slow: it only says thirty seconds. Now let's play that exact situation back from my frame. You looked at me after only thirty seconds; but your clock was running slow, so it said only fifteen seconds. CONTRADICTION! We agree that when you looked at me, my watch said thirty seconds: but did your watch say fifteen seconds (as I thought), or sixty (as you thought)? So we have taken what we intuitively felt made no sense, and exploited that to come up with a paradox that will test relativity: if there isn't a way out of that paradox, Relativity falls. So, as you probably suspected, here is the way out of the paradox. The problem, as with most of modern Physics, comes in making the measurement. Suppose that when I passed you the first time, and we synchronized our watches, we were right next to each other. That means that sixty seconds later (your frame), when you checked my watch, I was a long way away. How do you look at my watch a long way away? Your eyes take in light that bounced off it; your ears take in sound coming from it; whatever you do, you're using something that travelled from me to you. And it took time to do it. The point is, you can't say "I'm looking at his watch now." You have to say "I'm looking at light that came from his watch a while ago," and I have to say the same thing when I look at you. So when you and I are in different places, whatever we see about each other is old news. And we have to take that into account when we say "This is what I'm seeing on his watch," admitting that this is simply what his watch used to say. When we take that into account, we can plug through the math of Einstein's equations and we wind up without a paradox. Well, that was a sneaky way out. Looks like we can't disprove Relativity unless we can make measurements from the same place, at the same time, twice! Which we clearly can't do if one of us is moving, right? Well ? Thought Experiment #2: The Paradox of the Twin. When paradoxes have their own names, they tend to be pretty simple. So it is with this one; the Paradox of the Twin is actually simpler than the experiment I discussed above, although you will see how it comes in response to that one. Two twin brothers, Astro and Clay, bid a tearful farewell as Astro journeys into space. Astro is gone for twenty earth years, but because he is moving so incredibly fast, his clock is running very slowly and only a year passes in his own frame. When he returns, Clay is gray- haired and wrinkly, while Astro is still young and healthy. Based on Relativity, it makes perfect sense to say that less time passed for A stro because his clock was running slow. But then you can ask, what happened from Astro's perspective? He wasn't moving, and Earth was; so Clay's clock was moving slowly; so shouldn't Clay be the young one? CONTRADICTION. Think about that for a while. Does Einstein have a way to wriggle out of this one? As before, yes, he does; and yes, it's sneaky and weird. Astro doesn't have a reference frame. You can't look at things from his perspective, because he turned around in mid-flight. I mentioned earlier that an inertial frame means one which keeps on travelling at a constant speed. When Astro turned around; when he lost his stomach because the rocket was suddenly stopping and starting up again in the other direction; he should have realized that he was now in a different inertial reference frame from the one he started in. So all bets are off, as far as Special Relativity is concerned. Clay's perspective tells the true story, and for Astro to calculate his brother's age, he has to take his reference- frame-change into account in his calculations. When he does, he will get the same result Clay got: young Astro, old Clay. The rest of relativity is a lot like those last two thought experiments, usually done with enough math to rigorously prove the results that I "hand-waived" my way through. You can come up with - and explain - more and more time-dilation paradoxes. Some of your explanations lead to other bizarre relatavistic phenomena. You can show that length is different in different reference frames, destroying the classical concept of space; that mass is different in different reference frames, destroying the classical concept of matter; and that mass and energy are the same thing, destroying the classical concept of a winnable war. And Einstein did all of this, in the first decade of this century. His theory explained what happens when things go astonishingly fast, just as Quantum Mechanics was explaining what happens when things get amazingly small. (And Einstein went on to form the General Theory of Relativity, which explains what happens when things get incredibly big.) All of this is the wonder of modern Physics, the lure that drew me and so many others into the field: concepts which are as far out as any of science fiction or fantasy, are real, and can be analyzed and discussed intelligently rather than kind of mumbled about. And now that you have made it all the way through this paper, you can talk more intelligently about them than most. And maybe - hopefully - you're starting to wonder what else you can say about them. [I think the author's point here is 1) time is not a constant, and 2) all frames of reference are identical just as Zenon said. Unfortunately, the frames part is very hard to grasp, so much so that I still have a hard time accepting this after 30 years. Lee Parker] From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 25 18:56 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["847" "Wed" "25" "June" "1997" "20:18:32" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "22" "starship-design: THE QUANTUM'S PLIGHT" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id SAA03204 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 18:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA03154 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 18:56:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p21.gnt.com [204.49.68.226]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA27701 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:56:36 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC81AA.43DB4C00@x2p24.gnt.com>; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:56:34 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC81AA.43DB4C00@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 846 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: THE QUANTUM'S PLIGHT Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:18:32 -0500 THE QUANTUM'S PLIGHT A lively little quantum went darting through the air, Just as energetic quanta go speeding everywhere. He had traveled far -- this quantum -- urged as if by some far call, When he saw a lonely atom with no signs of pep at all, And he started for that atom in the highest of elation, Said he: "Here's where I show the world a trick of transmutation. I'm going to hit that atom such an awful, awful whack, That I'll knock out its electrons so far they can't get back." So he gave that peaceful atom such an energetic shove, That its outermost electrons soared to levels far above. Then the atom got excited, and it held the quantum fast, Until the last electron came tumbling back at last. Then the quantum was released again, and fled in degradation, While the atom got the credit for a lot of radiation. -- E.H. Johnson From owner-starship-design Wed Jun 25 18:56 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1269" "Wed" "25" "June" "1997" "20:31:03" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "35" "starship-design: THE PHYSICISTS' BILL OF RIGHTS" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id SAA03303 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 18:56:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA03244 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 18:56:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p21.gnt.com [204.49.68.226]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA27706 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:56:45 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC81AA.48F6F9A0@x2p24.gnt.com>; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:56:42 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC81AA.48F6F9A0@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1268 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: THE PHYSICISTS' BILL OF RIGHTS Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:31:03 -0500 THE PHYSICISTS' BILL OF RIGHTS (Concise Edition) We hold these postulates to be intuitively obvious, that all physicists are born equal, to a first approximation, and are endowed by their creator with certain discrete privileges, among them a mean rest life, n degrees of freedom, and the following rights, which are invariant under all linear transformations: I. To approximate all problems to ideal cases. II. To use order of magnitude calculations whenever deemed necessary (i.e., whenever one can get away with it). III. To use the rigorous method of "hand waving" for solving problems more complex than the additions of positive real integers. IV. To dismiss all functions that diverge as "nasty" and "unphysical." V. To invoke the uncertainty principle whenever confronted by confused mathematicians, chemists, engineers, psychologists, and dramatists. VI. To justify shaky reasoning on the basis that it gives the right answer. VII. To choose convenient initial conditions, using the principle of general triviality. VIII. To use plausible arguments in place of proofs, and thenceforth refer to those arguments as proofs. IX. To take on faith any principle which seems right but cannot be proved. X. To ignore data that don't fit the curve. From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 26 06:06 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4419" "Thu" "26" "June" "1997" "15:06:25" "+0200" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "91" "starship-design: Re: Even less Fun with Spacetime" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id GAA01801 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 06:06:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id GAA01790 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 06:06:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-030.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0whEFl-000G9wC; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 15:06:25 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 4418 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Even less Fun with Spacetime Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 15:06:25 +0200 (MET DST) Lee, >Never mind the fact that I don't believe this BUT, try this from the internet: OK, ignoring that you sent this letter to Ken first ;) >Thought Experiment #1: You're on Earth, and I fly by in my rocket as before. >Right as we pass each other, we both start our stopwatches. When your stopwatch >says that one minute has passed, you check my stopwatch. Because I'm in a >different frame, my watch is running slow: it only says thirty seconds. > >Now let's play that exact situation back from my frame. You looked at me after >only thirty seconds; but your clock was running slow, so it said only fifteen >seconds. CONTRADICTION! We agree that when you looked at me, my watch said >thirty seconds: but did your watch say fifteen seconds (as I thought), or sixty >(as you thought)? So we have taken what we intuitively felt made no sense, and exploited that to come up with a paradox that will test relativity: if there >isn't a way out of that paradox, Relativity falls. Hmm, try comparing it with a magnifying glass. When I look trough the glass at you, you look bigger. However when you look at me through the magnifier, I look bigger. I measure your thumb by my thumb and conclude your thumb is two of my thumbs. You however conclude that my thumb is twice as big as yours. CONTRADICTION! Yet it happens. You just can't communicate through a symmetry and then compare the results as if you used linear translation. Relativity does not only create a lens for spatial directions, but also for time. Like many have written before me, most of us are not used to seeing time as a "normal" dimension, therefore the implications sound so strange. >So, as you probably suspected, here is the way out of the paradox. The >problem, as with most of modern Physics, comes in making the measurement. >Suppose that when I passed you the first time, and we synchronized our >watches, we were right next to each other. That means that sixty seconds >later (your frame), when you checked my watch, I was a long way away. How >do you look at my watch a long way away? Your eyes take in light that >bounced off it; your ears take in sound coming from it; whatever you do, >you're using something that travelled from me to you. And it took time to >do it. Just like Ken told you, *this* isn't a measurement problem, even if you magically could read the other person's watch as if it was at your own wrist, you'd see that it runs slow. >Thought Experiment #2: The Paradox of the Twin. When paradoxes have >their own names, they tend to be pretty simple. So it is with this one; >the Paradox of the Twin is actually simpler than the experiment I >discussed above, although you will see how it comes in response to >that one. > >Two twin brothers, Astro and Clay, bid a tearful farewell as Astro >journeys into space. Astro is gone for twenty earth years, but because >he is moving so incredibly fast, his clock is running very slowly and >only a year passes in his own frame. When he returns, Clay is gray- >haired and wrinkly, while Astro is still young and healthy. Based on >Relativity, it makes perfect sense to say that less time passed for A >stro because his clock was running slow. But then you can ask, what >happened from Astro's perspective? He wasn't moving, and Earth was; >so Clay's clock was moving slowly; so shouldn't Clay be the young one? >CONTRADICTION. Think about that for a while. Does Einstein have a way >to wriggle out of this one? Yes, just like I wrote in the letter "increasingly less fun with spacetime": The stationary twin thinks his brother lived slower or equal all the time. But the moving twin thinks his brother first lived slower, than started living hyperfast, and finally slower again. However his brother lived hyperfast more than he lived slower, so the net result is that his brother lived faster. BTW. Astro does have multiple reference frames, it just makes things a little bit harder, but not impossible. >[I think the author's point here is 1) time is not a constant, and 2) all >frames of reference are identical just as Zenon said. Unfortunately, the >frames part is very hard to grasp, so much so that I still have a hard >time accepting this after 30 years. Good explained examples can do miracles in teaching. I hope that some of what I wrote you and the group may at least start some candles burning. Timothy From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 26 07:33 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["272" "Thu" "26" "June" "1997" "09:28:55" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "10" "RE: starship-design: Re: Even less Fun with Spacetime" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id HAA15998 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 07:33:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA15982 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 07:33:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p36.gnt.com [204.49.68.241]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA30789 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:33:21 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC8213.FBBBA720@x2p24.gnt.com>; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:33:19 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC8213.FBBBA720@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 271 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Even less Fun with Spacetime Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:28:55 -0500 Timothy, I've lost count of how many explanations I've read on this. I still haven't made the leap in understanding. I am willing to accept it at face value until it is proven wrong, but it is still hard to believe. Probably why I am just an engineer ;-) Lee Parker From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 26 08:05 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1680" "Thu" "26" "June" "1997" "17:03:39" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "40" "Re: starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id IAA23106 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:05:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA23053 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:05:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA02013; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:03:39 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706261503.RAA02013@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1679 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:03:39 +0200 (MET DST) > From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) > > Zenon wrote: > > >If that [space and time being discrete] proves to > >be true (whatever "true" exactly means), > >it will relate to our objective quite significantly. > > > >Namely, it will mean that our Universe is like a 3(or more)-D > >cellular automaton (just like a giant version of Conway's game "Life"), > >which in turn will mean that FTL is really impossible > >(and explain why - you cannot shift bits in your computer > >faster than one tick of your master clock...). > > > >Moreover, then all will have to go digital... ;-)) > > Not necessarily, there may be something underneath space-time. > That is, something that provides the building blocks for space-time. > Just like nature provides ways to enhance the building blocks of today's > computer (and thus allows to increase the speed of the masterclock, nature > may also provide ways to enhance the velocity of information transfer. > I wonder - does the software running on a computer have an access to the computer's master clock? E.g., can it make it tick faster? Even if so, it will not change the situation within the world modelled by the cellular automaton - ticks may become shorter (in the whole computer's frame of reference...), but the amount of action per tick will be still the same (hence c will not change). The only way to go faster within world's frame of reference would be to change the topology of cell connections: i.e., make more cells around any given one be "adjacent" to it (that is, accessible in a single tick). But this also will not make FTL possible - it will only make the limit speed (c) higher. -- Zenon From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 26 08:24 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2201" "Thu" "26" "June" "1997" "17:21:55" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "52" "Re: starship-design: Quantum Gravity" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id IAA28623 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:24:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA28444 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:23:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA02122; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:21:55 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706261521.RAA02122@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2200 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: Quantum Gravity Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:21:55 +0200 (MET DST) > From: kyle > > Zenon Kulpa wrote: > > > > > From: "L. Parker" > > > > > > I apologize if this is old news to anybody, but it sounds interesting > > > since it relates (slightly) to this group's objective - > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > The idea that space and time may not be continuous but are built, > > > like matter, from very tiny "atomic building blocks" is not new - > > > it was proposed previously by Roger Penrose, of Oxford University > > > and Penn State,and other physicists and mathematicians. > > > The work of Rovelli and Smolin is, however, the first to show > > > that these discrete structures are required > > > by the laws of quantum mechanics and relativity theory. > > > > > > [...] > > > > > If that proves to be true (whatever "true" exactly means), > > it will relate to our objective quite significantly. > > Quite true. > > > Namely, it will mean that our Universe is like a 3(or more)-D > > cellular automaton (just like a giant version of Conway's game "Life"), > > which in turn will mean that FTL is really impossible > > (and explain why - you cannot shift bits in your computer > > faster than one tick of your master clock...). > > The universe has no "clock" as far as we know. Besides, giving structure > to the fabric of space would only strenghten FTL (Try walking in a > vacuum). It gives you something to warp (Alcubierre's theory), > somethingto push against (the Aether hypothesis), and alot of energy. > Lee Parker is right though: it could be used badly. So lets use it for > good (FTL Propulsion), not planet bombs. > Clock or no clock, if time is quantized, it means no action can take less time than the quantum. Then, if space is quantized, it means that the elementary move in space cannot go farther than to some space cell "adjacent" in space to the given one. Unless we allow all space cells to be adjacent to all the other (not very interesting case), it means that there MUST be the limit speed, and that it is equal to the distance of adjacent cells (in the simplest case, like in most cellular automata used, it means one space quantum) divided by the time quantum. -- Zenon From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 26 08:26 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["272" "Thu" "26" "June" "1997" "17:24:12" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "12" "Re: starship-design: Even less Fun with Spacetime" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id IAA28987 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:26:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA28960 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:26:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA02129; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:24:12 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706261524.RAA02129@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 271 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: Even less Fun with Spacetime Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:24:12 +0200 (MET DST) > From: "L. Parker" > > [...] > > [I think the author's point here is 1) time is not a constant, and 2) all > frames of reference are identical just as Zenon said. > Who, me? As far as I know, I did not participate in this thread... -- Zenon From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 26 08:52 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["798" "Thu" "26" "June" "1997" "10:48:18" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "23" "RE: starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id IAA06343 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:52:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA06332 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:52:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p20.gnt.com [204.49.68.225]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA02782 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:52:39 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC821F.0E090340@x2p24.gnt.com>; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:52:35 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC821F.0E090340@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 797 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:48:18 -0500 Zenon, I would be quite happy if we could simply raise the limit of c - you're talking aboout warp drive here though. Not going faster than c, just "warping" the fabric of space to increase the speed of c. Lee Parker Even if so, it will not change the situation within the world modelled by the cellular automaton - ticks may become shorter (in the whole computer's frame of reference...), but the amount of action per tick will be still the same (hence c will not change). The only way to go faster within world's frame of reference would be to change the topology of cell connections: i.e., make more cells around any given one be "adjacent" to it (that is, accessible in a single tick). But this also will not make FTL possible - it will only make the limit speed (c) higher. -- Zenon From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 26 08:52 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["421" "Thu" "26" "June" "1997" "10:48:31" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "15" "RE: starship-design: Quantum Gravity" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id IAA06367 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:52:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA06354 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:52:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p20.gnt.com [204.49.68.225]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA02793 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:52:44 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC821F.11811300@x2p24.gnt.com>; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:52:40 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC821F.11811300@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 420 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Quantum Gravity Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:48:31 -0500 Zenon et. al., Did part of the original post get lost? The researchers described the structure as being "loops" not cells. I get the impression of something similar to a rug when I think about this, or perhaps a woven fabric. I don't think stretching the fabric or compressing it or maybe just moving across adjacent loops is out of the question. Of course, they haven't actually observed ANYTHING yet. Lee Parker From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 26 08:52 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["126" "Thu" "26" "June" "1997" "10:49:45" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "13" "RE: starship-design: Even less Fun with Spacetime" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id IAA06398 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:52:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA06380 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:52:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p20.gnt.com [204.49.68.225]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA02799 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:52:48 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC821F.13DD5280@x2p24.gnt.com>; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:52:44 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC821F.13DD5280@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 125 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Even less Fun with Spacetime Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:49:45 -0500 Zenon, Oops, sorry, I think it was Ken Lee Who, me? As far as I know, I did not participate in this thread... -- Zenon From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 26 11:49 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2129" "Thu" "26" "June" "1997" "11:49:09" "-0700" "Ken Wharton" "wharton@physics.ucla.edu" nil "52" "starship-design: Spacetime, Shmacetime" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id LAA14923 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:49:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from physics.ucla.edu (physics.ucla.edu [128.97.23.13]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id LAA14914 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:49:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from watt by physics.ucla.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA07782; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:49:08 -0700 Received: by watt (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA24277; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:49:09 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706261849.LAA24277@watt> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2128 From: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Spacetime, Shmacetime Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:49:09 -0700 Timothy correctly responds to my assertion: >>Now, this "back-in-time" behavior will happen with or without FTL. This >>happens in the twin paradox when one twin turns around; the stationary twin >>"sees" the other twin travel backwards in time. > >No, I don't think so: > >[long explanation removed] > >So the stationary twin thinks his brother lived slower or equal all the time. >But the moving twin thinks his brother first lived slower, than started >living hyperfast, and finally slower again. However his brother lived >hyperfast more than he lived slower, so the net result is that his brother >lived faster. That's correct. I had a sign error in my thinking; things only go backwards in time when you accelerate AWAY from them, not toward them as is done in the Twin Paradox. The Twin Paradox can be easily modified so that (far away) objects DO seem to go backwards in time. After the rocket-ship twin turns around toward Earth, have him turn around a second time, back in the direction that he was going in the first place. During this process, time on Earth (instead of zipping forward very fast) zips BACKWARDS very fast. It's a reversable process: you can accelerate one way to make time go forward, and the other way to make time go backwards. No paradox, though, because by the time you get back to Earth time has always gone forwards. Unless, of course, you have FTL. This comes directly out of the Lorentz transformation of time: t' = gamma *(t - vx). If you're at t=0, and you're looking at a far-away object (say x=1), A space time event that seems like it's "now" (x=1, t=0) is transformed to a t' = gamma * (-v). If v is negative (i.e. you're accelerating away from x) then t' is now a positive quantity. But what does that mean? It means that an event that was once "now", is now happening at a positive time coordinate; in the future! So something that has "already" happened, now hasn't happened yet! (In your reference frame). You've just "sent" the far-away object back in time. Fortunately you can't do this for close-up objects! Strange but true... Ken From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 26 14:21 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1494" "Thu" "26" "June" "1997" "23:21:37" "+0200" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "38" "starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id OAA16018 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 14:21:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA15927 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 14:21:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-021.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0whLyz-000HmEC; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 23:21:37 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1493 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 23:21:37 +0200 (MET DST) Hello Zenon, >>Not necessarily, there may be something underneath space-time. >>That is, something that provides the building blocks for space-time. >>Just like nature provides ways to enhance the building blocks of today's >>computer (and thus allows to increase the speed of the masterclock, nature >>may also provide ways to enhance the velocity of information transfer. > >I wonder - does the software running on a computer >have an access to the computer's master clock? >E.g., can it make it tick faster? No, but *we* can make it faster. >Even if so, it will not change the situation >within the world modelled by the cellular automaton - >ticks may become shorter (in the whole computer's frame >of reference...), but the amount of action >per tick will be still the same (hence c will not change). Indeed, this is the case with FTL theories where space is warped long before a trip is made. Ie. The formation of the "wormhole" is still limited by c. After the wormhole is established one may go through it and reach a destination in a faster way. >The only way to go faster within world's frame of reference >would be to change the topology of cell connections: >i.e., make more cells around any given one be "adjacent" >to it (that is, accessible in a single tick). >But this also will not make FTL possible - >it will only make the limit speed (c) higher. True, but I suggested, that there may be something underneath space-time, something that isn't discrete. Timothy From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 26 14:22 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["369" "Thu" "26" "June" "1997" "23:21:36" "+0200" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "13" "starship-design: Re: Even less Fun with Spacetime" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id OAA16236 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 14:22:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA16212 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 14:22:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-021.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0whLyy-000HmBC; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 23:21:36 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 368 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Even less Fun with Spacetime Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 23:21:36 +0200 (MET DST) Hello Lee, You wrote me: >I've lost count of how many explanations I've read on this. I still haven't >made the leap in understanding. I am willing to accept it at face value until >it is proven wrong, but it is still hard to believe. Probably why I am just >an engineer ;-) But do you have the same problems with the magnifier glass example I presented? Timothy From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 26 16:21 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["449" "Thu" "26" "June" "1997" "18:20:39" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "11" "RE: starship-design: Re: Even less Fun with Spacetime" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id QAA20636 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 16:21:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA20607 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 16:20:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p24.gnt.com (x2p0.gnt.com [204.49.68.205]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA29483 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:20:56 -0500 Received: by x2p24.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC825D.AE00F900@x2p24.gnt.com>; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:20:52 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC825D.AE00F900@x2p24.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id QAA20623 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 448 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Even less Fun with Spacetime Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:20:39 -0500 Timothy, But do you have the same problems with the magnifier glass example I presented? You know, I was thinking about your example right after I sent that last message. That has got to be the best analogy I have seen yet. Is it original? If so you are to be complemented...I liked it very much. I have a good one to explain the expansion of space that I use when somebody on the newsgroups gets confused. I will send it to you sometime. Lee From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 26 16:40 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2243" "Fri" "27" "June" "1997" "01:40:48" "+0200" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "50" "starship-design: Re: Spacetime, Shmacetime" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id QAA28471 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 16:40:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA28458 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 16:40:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-016.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0whO9g-000FseC; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 01:40:48 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2242 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Spacetime, Shmacetime Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 01:40:48 +0200 (MET DST) To Ken, >>So the stationary twin thinks his brother lived slower or equal all the >>time. >>But the moving twin thinks his brother first lived slower, than started >>living hyperfast, and finally slower again. However his brother lived >>hyperfast more than he lived slower, so the net result is that his brother >>lived faster. > >That's correct. I had a sign error in my thinking; things only go >backwards in time when you accelerate AWAY from them, not toward them as is >done in the Twin Paradox. > >The Twin Paradox can be easily modified so that (far away) objects DO seem >to go backwards in time. After the rocket-ship twin turns around toward >Earth, have him turn around a second time, back in the direction that he >was going in the first place. During this process, time on Earth (instead >of zipping forward very fast) zips BACKWARDS very fast. It's a reversable >process: you can accelerate one way to make time go forward, and the other >way to make time go backwards. No paradox, though, because by the time you >get back to Earth time has always gone forwards. Unless, of course, you >have FTL. I think you are wrong again, time doesn't zip backward very fast, it slows down even more but still is going forwards. >This comes directly out of the Lorentz transformation of time: > >t' = gamma *(t - vx). > >If you're at t=0, and you're looking at a far-away object (say x=1), A >space time event that seems like it's "now" (x=1, t=0) is transformed to a >t' = gamma * (-v). If v is negative (i.e. you're accelerating away from x) >then t' is now a positive quantity. But what does that mean? It means >that an event that was once "now", is now happening at a positive time >coordinate; in the future! So something that has "already" happened, now >hasn't happened yet! (In your reference frame). You've just "sent" the >far-away object back in time. Fortunately you can't do this for close-up >objects! Hmmm, it seems that now *you* are confusing real and unreal timedilation. The story right above is about what you see, not about what happens. Try to follow how t' changes when t increases. You'll see that regardless how the sign of v is, t' will increase. (Note |v|<1 ) Timothy From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 26 16:43 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1045" "Thu" "26" "June" "1997" "18:42:40" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "22" "starship-design: Book Recommendation" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id QAA29224 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 16:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA29198 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 16:43:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p12.gnt.com (x2p12.gnt.com [204.49.68.217]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA30795 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:43:06 -0500 Received: by x2p12.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC8260.C7BDB060@x2p12.gnt.com>; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:43:03 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC8260.C7BDB060@x2p12.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id QAA29199 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1044 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Book Recommendation Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:42:40 -0500 I just ordered a copy of Spacetime Physics to add to my collection. Feynman and Hawking are good, but I need all the help I can get. I came across a reference to another good book that everyone may be interested in, it is called: Proximity Zero (I think this is a pun on Tau Zero) by Terry Kepner ISBN 0-926895-04-4 This is a guide to the local 40 light years for writers of science fiction to enable them to get their facts straight. From the previews I have seen it is REALLY good. It covers all the standard information such as position in the sky (with charts), spectral type, mass, luminosity, etc. But then goes on to detail life zones (even for binary stars) and give examples of what a habitable planet might be like at each of these stars for almost 200 stars. Lots of charts, diagrams and data in a good format. Most of the data is available on the web, but this book does a really good job of pulling it all together and presenting it. For a preview go to: http://www.peekaboo.net/tkepner/proximityzero.html Lee Parker From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 26 16:47 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["650" "Fri" "27" "June" "1997" "01:48:03" "+0200" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "22" "starship-design: Re: Even less Fun with Spacetime" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id QAA00748 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA00684 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 16:47:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-016.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0whOGh-000Fw8C; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 01:48:03 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 649 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Even less Fun with Spacetime Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 01:48:03 +0200 (MET DST) Lee, You answered me: >>But do you have the same problems with the magnifier glass example I presented? > >You know, I was thinking about your example right after I sent that last >message. That has got to be the best analogy I have seen yet. Is it original? >If so you are to be complemented...I liked it very much. I cannot remember it seeing used with the twin paradox. So at least it was original to me. Actually I was a bit surprised myself that there was an analogy. I always had looked at timedilation as some sort of time-lense, but never thought of using it in the twin paradox. So yes, I'll take the complements as they come :) Tim From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 26 21:06 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1740" "Fri" "27" "June" "1997" "00:05:39" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "42" "Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id VAA00622 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 21:06:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA00609 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 21:06:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id AAA00323; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 00:05:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970627000532_1587328126@emout07.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1739 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 00:05:39 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/25/97 11:32:50 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (Zenon Kulpa) wrote: >> From: "L. Parker" >> >> Now to more mundane matters. The point of my posting the list of stars >> within 5 parsecs wasn't to poke holes in it (sorry Zenon) >> >As a scientists, I am used to carefully check my data before >drawing any conclusions from them ;-) > >> I just wanted >> everyone to see that there were FIFTY EIGHT stars within our reach NOW. >> If you expand that another 5 parsecs there are THOUSANDS. I think we are >> wasting time here...we need a couple of gigawatt free electron lasers >> in orbit to start pushing out Starwisps as soon as we can. >> We should be getting the first results back by the time we figure out >> a better way to push manned starships to the stars. >> >I do agree. > >Generally I consider it obvious that starting interstellar manned >missions must be preceded by a series of robotic flyby/pathfinder >missions (various scenarios of this sort were posted on this list, >e.g. by me and, just recently, Lee). >And these robotic probes are far easier to design, build and launch >using even today's technology. In the same time, they constitute >a good exercise in interstellar flight technology, >necessary to be advanced and tested before any attempts >to actually build and use a manned starship. >Possibly we should switch (at least for some time...) >into design of such robotic probe(s)? I used to agree with this. But given you can probably gain about the same amount of info via super sized telescopes, and the robots would report back for decades (by then the whole projects likely to be obsolete). I'm woundering if robot probes aer very usefull? Kelly From owner-starship-design Thu Jun 26 22:43 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["698" "Thu" "26" "June" "1997" "23:43:19" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "13" "Re: starship-design: Constant 1 g Acceleration" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id WAA19257 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:43:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id WAA19237 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:43:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp5.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp5.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.77]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA30092 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 01:43:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33B360F8.600A@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <01BC80EB.E5542C60@x2p24.gnt.com> <33B360BC.2DF2@sunherald.infi.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 697 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Constant 1 g Acceleration Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 23:43:19 -0700 L. Parker wrote: > > Okay, I chickened out and didn't write a program, but here is the next best thing... > > Original by Philip Gibbs 21-September-1996 > > The Relativistic Rocket > > The theory of relativity sets a severe limit to our ability to explore the galaxy in space-ships. As an object approaches the speed of light more and more energy is needed to accelerate it further. To reach the speed of light an infinite amount of energy would be required. It seems that the speed of light is an absolute barrier which cannot be reached or surpassed by massive objects. Perhaps the light speed barrier is a brick wall... Give me the jackhammer! Plastic explosive, anyone?? Perhaps a bulldozer? From owner-starship-design Fri Jun 27 05:55 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1535" "Fri" "27" "June" "1997" "07:40:51" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "34" "RE: starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id FAA25627 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 05:55:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id FAA25601 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 05:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p12.gnt.com (x2p19.gnt.com [204.49.68.224]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA00375 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 07:55:10 -0500 Received: by x2p12.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC82CF.6EBF4040@x2p12.gnt.com>; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 07:55:08 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC82CF.6EBF4040@x2p12.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1534 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 07:40:51 -0500 Kelly, Given sufficiently large and sensitive telescopes in outer space, you may be right. I am not sure that we can find out everything we need to know from telescopes though. We may eventually be able to determine the atmospheric components of extasolar planets teh size of Earth from here, but that sort of resolution is way beyond us now. Of course, the spaceborne infrastructure we would need to construct and launch probes would almost make building such a telescope an afterthought. I used to agree with this. But given you can probably gain about the same amount of info via super sized telescopes, and the robots would report back for decades (by then the whole projects likely to be obsolete). I'm woundering if robot probes aer very usefull? I had envisioned doing both, finding out as much as possible from here with telescopes, then sending a probe mission if there were planets or some other compelling reason to do so. If for instance we can determine that there are indeed planets of near Earth size in the life zone of Tau Ceti, and perhaps even that there was an atmosphere, it is unlikely that we could type all of the components of that atmosphere from here. What if there were just a few ppm of cyanide gas? We wouldn't be able to detect that from here with a crystal ball! But knowing that there was an atmosphere we could send a very basic probe to do initial surveys and maybe some sampling. I agree with your point about timing, but I really don't see any other way of doing it. From owner-starship-design Fri Jun 27 06:01 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2157" "Fri" "27" "June" "1997" "14:59:03" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "51" "Re: starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id GAA26123 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 06:01:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id GAA26103 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 06:01:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA03397; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:59:03 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706271259.OAA03397@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2156 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:59:03 +0200 (MET DST) > From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) > > >>Not necessarily, there may be something underneath space-time. > >>That is, something that provides the building blocks for space-time. > >>Just like nature provides ways to enhance the building blocks of today's > >>computer (and thus allows to increase the speed of the masterclock, nature > >>may also provide ways to enhance the velocity of information transfer. > > > >I wonder - does the software running on a computer > >have an access to the computer's master clock? > >E.g., can it make it tick faster? > > No, but *we* can make it faster. > But in the "cellular automaton model" of the universe, *we* are the software (or rather, even something more abstract: the patterns of cell states produced by software, consider "gliders" and "spaceships" in the game of "life"...). > >Even if so, it will not change the situation > >within the world modelled by the cellular automaton - > >ticks may become shorter (in the whole computer's frame > >of reference...), but the amount of action > >per tick will be still the same (hence c will not change). > > Indeed, this is the case with FTL theories where space is warped long before > a trip is made. Ie. The formation of the "wormhole" is still limited by c. > After the wormhole is established one may go through it and reach a > destination in a faster way. > This amounts to local change of the topology of space in the cellular model. It is doubtful if the "patterns of cell states" (i.e., *we*) can do that... > >The only way to go faster within world's frame of reference > >would be to change the topology of cell connections: > >i.e., make more cells around any given one be "adjacent" > >to it (that is, accessible in a single tick). > >But this also will not make FTL possible - > >it will only make the limit speed (c) higher. > > True, but I suggested, that there may be something underneath space-time, > something that isn't discrete. > True, but then *we* would have no access to this level of the world. -- Zenon, The Cell Patttern No. 3945768180994076891...640294787628490923984 (or something ;-) From owner-starship-design Fri Jun 27 07:45 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2117" "Fri" "27" "June" "1997" "16:42:50" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "50" "Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id HAA11520 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 07:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA11489 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 07:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA03687; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 16:42:50 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706271442.QAA03687@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2116 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 16:42:50 +0200 (MET DST) > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 6/25/97 11:32:50 AM, (Zenon Kulpa) wrote: > > >> From: "L. Parker" > >> > >> I just wanted > >> everyone to see that there were FIFTY EIGHT stars within our reach NOW. > >> If you expand that another 5 parsecs there are THOUSANDS. I think we are > >> wasting time here...we need a couple of gigawatt free electron lasers > >> in orbit to start pushing out Starwisps as soon as we can. > >> We should be getting the first results back by the time we figure out > >> a better way to push manned starships to the stars. > >> > >I do agree. > > > >Generally I consider it obvious that starting interstellar manned > >missions must be preceded by a series of robotic flyby/pathfinder > >missions (various scenarios of this sort were posted on this list, > >e.g. by me and, just recently, Lee). > >And these robotic probes are far easier to design, build and launch > >using even today's technology. In the same time, they constitute > >a good exercise in interstellar flight technology, > >necessary to be advanced and tested before any attempts > >to actually build and use a manned starship. > >Possibly we should switch (at least for some time...) > >into design of such robotic probe(s)? > > I used to agree with this. But given you can probably gain about the same > amount of info via super sized telescopes, and the robots would report back > for decades (by then the whole projects likely to be obsolete). > I'm woundering if robot probes aer very usefull? > Hmmm, that is a point... However: 1st, even super sized telescopes have their limitations (e.g., gathering such important [for manned flight] data as radiation & other conditions in the interstellar medium is hardly possible with a telescope), and they may cost even more than a robotic starprobe (see also Lee's answer to the above), and 2nd, another (even more) important reason of sending the probes is to test in REAL conditions the fledgling starflight technology, before risking lives (you are, Kelly, against suicide missions, aren't you?). -- Zenon From owner-starship-design Fri Jun 27 08:19 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2090" "Fri" "27" "June" "1997" "17:19:12" "+0200" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "43" "Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id IAA19864 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:19:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA19844 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:19:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-019.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0whcno-000GcoC; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 17:19:12 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2089 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 17:19:12 +0200 (MET DST) Kelly replied: >>Generally I consider it obvious that starting interstellar manned >>missions must be preceded by a series of robotic flyby/pathfinder >>missions (various scenarios of this sort were posted on this list, >>e.g. by me and, just recently, Lee). >>And these robotic probes are far easier to design, build and launch >>using even today's technology. In the same time, they constitute >>a good exercise in interstellar flight technology, >>necessary to be advanced and tested before any attempts >>to actually build and use a manned starship. >>Possibly we should switch (at least for some time...) >>into design of such robotic probe(s)? > >I used to agree with this. But given you can probably gain about the same >amount of info via super sized telescopes, and the robots would report back >for decades (by then the whole projects likely to be obsolete). I'm >woundering if robot probes aer very usefull? First of all you'd need rather big telescopes to resolve something like a meter. Note that big can also mean two telescopes far apart (big means something like 1E10 meters). This number doesn't take into account that the telescope has to gather enough light to make a visible image. It is likely that the two telescopes that are far apart still need to be much bigger than anything we have on Earth to give a bright enough image. And there are many things we cannot figure out by light alone, that still may be rather important for a mission. Although I cannot estimate what would be important, I can give a few examples: Think about the structure of the planets, and materials that can be found there. You might be able to do some spectrography to figure out what lies on the surface, but not what is just under it. If there are organisms, we may like to know just a bit more than the fact that they are there. Robots may capture/photograph them. Kyle's question about airdensity and composition may be useful too. Besides that having more detail is useful for the mission, it might spark imagination of Earth's population and get some extra money. Timothy From owner-starship-design Fri Jun 27 10:28 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1342" "Fri" "27" "June" "1997" "11:27:13" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "25" "starship-design: Cellular universe? Not!" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id KAA28254 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 10:28:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA28087 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 10:27:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp6.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp6.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.78]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA24701 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 13:27:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33B40600.622@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Length: 1341 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Cellular universe? Not! Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 11:27:13 -0700 Greetings all: No offense to anyone, but I'm not buying this 'cellular automaton' universe theory. It doesn't hold up in terms of what has been observed. (i.e. warping of spacetime, etc.) There have been instances where space has been warped in a laborotory environment, although very inefficient. If the cellular theory held up, then the transmission projects of Günther Nimitz would not work. I think that a fair theory incorporating ZPF is this: Space has structure, not just chaos. Space itself is made of something firm yet bendable. We simply haven't _quite_ mastered how to bend it the way we want to to allow us to exceed the speed of light. If you like, consider it not FTL, but increasing the speed of light itself to allow travel at reasonable time periods. Everyone keeps saying that with subluminal speed you can get to the stars in a human lifetime. Wrong. How long does it take to travel to, say a star 500 light years away at near lightspeed? About 500 years! So maybe the people on the ship age slower, but not the people on earth. They'd be dead by the time you got there. (ironically, an FTL starship may have already arrived there when your slowsip arrived.) Try getting public funding for that. "The crew will get there alive, but sorry folks, you'll all be dead by the time it arrives at the star." Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Fri Jun 27 10:51 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1310" "Fri" "27" "June" "1997" "19:48:55" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "32" "Re: starship-design: Cellular universe? Not!" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id KAA07015 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 10:51:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA06898 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 10:50:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id TAA03879; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 19:48:55 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706271748.TAA03879@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1309 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, stk@sunherald.infi.net Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: Cellular universe? Not! Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 19:48:55 +0200 (MET DST) > From: kyle > > No offense to anyone, but I'm not buying this 'cellular automaton' > universe theory. It doesn't hold up in terms of what has been observed. > (i.e. warping of spacetime, etc.) There have been instances where space > has been warped in a laborotory environment, although very inefficient. > If the cellular theory held up, then the transmission projects of > Günther Nimitz would not work. > Do not flame up, Kyle, the "cellular automaton" theory is just a speculation. I am afraid, not much more speculative than the space warping theories. > I think that a fair theory incorporating > ZPF is this: Space has structure, not just chaos. Space itself is made > of something firm yet bendable. We simply haven't _quite_ mastered how > to bend it the way we want to allow us to exceed the speed of light. > Just another speculation... > If you like, consider it not FTL, but increasing the speed of light > itself to allow travel at reasonable time periods. > The "cellular automaton" speculation predicts the unbreakable limit speed, but before the exact topology of space quanta arrangement and the value of time quantum is firmly established, it cannot calculate what is the exact value of the limit (possibly, it is much more than 300,000 km/s ?). -- Zenon From owner-starship-design Fri Jun 27 14:24 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2550" "Fri" "27" "June" "1997" "23:24:45" "+0200" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "63" "starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id OAA25306 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA25291 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:24:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-014.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0whiVZ-000K2VC; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 23:24:45 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2549 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 23:24:45 +0200 (MET DST) Zenon, >>>I wonder - does the software running on a computer >>>have an access to the computer's master clock? >>>E.g., can it make it tick faster? >> >>No, but *we* can make it faster. > >But in the "cellular automaton model" of the universe, >*we* are the software (or rather, even something more abstract: >the patterns of cell states produced by software, >consider "gliders" and "spaceships" in the game of "life"...). I wasn't sure if I wanted to include this last time, I wish I had: We are software that can manipulate the computer. It is like AI-"software" in a computer that has hands and may be able to upgrade its own memory. >>>Even if so, it will not change the situation >>>within the world modelled by the cellular automaton - >>>ticks may become shorter (in the whole computer's frame >>>of reference...), but the amount of action >>>per tick will be still the same (hence c will not change). >> >>Indeed, this is the case with FTL theories where space is warped long before >>a trip is made. Ie. The formation of the "wormhole" is still limited by c. >>After the wormhole is established one may go through it and reach a >>destination in a faster way. > >This amounts to local change of the topology of space >in the cellular model. >It is doubtful if the "patterns of cell states" >(i.e., *we*) can do that... Well we would use some of natures tools that can interact with the topology of space in a way we would like. For that matter, masses do interact with the topology of space, all we may have to do is put them in the right configuration. >> >The only way to go faster within world's frame of reference >> >would be to change the topology of cell connections: >> >i.e., make more cells around any given one be "adjacent" >> >to it (that is, accessible in a single tick). >> >But this also will not make FTL possible - >> >it will only make the limit speed (c) higher. >> >> True, but I suggested, that there may be something underneath space-time, >> something that isn't discrete. >> >True, but then *we* would have no access to this level of the world. I assumed the underlying structure of space time interacts with space-time. (If it didn't there was little use of mentioning it.) I also assumed that interaction was in two ways: spacetime is influenced by the underlying structure, and the underlying structure is influenced by the presence of spacetime. So if spacetime changes, by our influence (Eg. placing matter in a special configuration) than we can manipulate the underlying structure. Timothy From owner-starship-design Fri Jun 27 14:34 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2254" "Fri" "27" "June" "1997" "18:33:46" "-0300" "Antonio C T Rocha" "arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br" nil "62" "Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id OAA28905 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:34:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA28879 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:34:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Metacor.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (dl1139-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.139]) by srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (8.8.5/SCA-6.6) with ESMTP id VAA08771 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 21:30:33 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33B431B8.92560EAB@bsb.nutecnet.com.br> Organization: is unrealistic X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Antonio C T Rocha Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 2253 From: Antonio C T Rocha Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 18:33:46 -0300 >In a message dated 6/25/97 11:32:50 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (Zenon >Kulpa) wrote: >>> From: "L. Parker" >>> (.....) >>As a scientists, I am used to carefully check my data before >>drawing any conclusions from them ;-) >> >>> I just wanted >>> everyone to see that there were FIFTY EIGHT stars within our reach NOW. >>> If you expand that another 5 parsecs there are THOUSANDS. I think we are >>> wasting time here...we need a couple of gigawatt free electron lasers >>> in orbit to start pushing out Starwisps as soon as we can. >>> We should be getting the first results back by the time we figure out >>> a better way to push manned starships to the stars. >>> >>I do agree. >> >>Generally I consider it obvious that starting interstellar manned >>missions must be preceded by a series of robotic flyby/pathfinder >>missions (various scenarios of this sort were posted on this list, >>e.g. by me and, just recently, Lee). >>And these robotic probes are far easier to design, build and launch >>using even today's technology. In the same time, they constitute >>a good exercise in interstellar flight technology, >>necessary to be advanced and tested before any attempts >>to actually build and use a manned starship. >>Possibly we should switch (at least for some time...) >>into design of such robotic probe(s)? >I used to agree with this. But given you can probably gain about the same >amount of info via super sized telescopes, and the robots would report back >for decades (by then the whole projects likely to be obsolete). I'm >woundering if robot probes aer very usefull? >Kelly Robot probes could determine for certain the type and sequence of nearby stars. Telescopic observation alone has not been capable of dispelling differences of interpretation on this issue. Solar wind-sampling and orbital reconnaissance bring in much more detailed and clearer data than interstellar spectra. Of course, humans are good at fixing tings, which tend to go wrong on long trips. But then again, 21st century tech just might be good enough to produce successful interstellar probes - what with all the testing on that good old Oort Cloud and whatnot... 8-) There is nothing like being there. Antonio C Rocha From owner-starship-design Fri Jun 27 14:40 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["146" "Fri" "27" "June" "1997" "18:38:56" "-0300" "Antonio C T Rocha" "arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br" nil "9" "Re:starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id OAA01438 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:40:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA01412 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Metacor.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (dl1139-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.139]) by srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (8.8.5/SCA-6.6) with ESMTP id VAA09454 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 21:35:41 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33B432EF.F0BDB757@bsb.nutecnet.com.br> Organization: is unrealistic X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Antonio C T Rocha Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 145 From: Antonio C T Rocha Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re:starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 18:38:56 -0300 Regarding Super-telescopes x robot probes. Why not join forces? Super-telescope robot probes! I even like the sound of it ;-) Antonio C Rocha From owner-starship-design Fri Jun 27 19:06 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["651" "Fri" "27" "June" "1997" "20:58:54" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "24" "RE: starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Go Starwisps" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id TAA15642 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 19:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA15573 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 19:06:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p12.gnt.com (x2p31.gnt.com [204.49.68.236]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA08886 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 21:06:11 -0500 Received: by x2p12.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC833D.ED5BEE80@x2p12.gnt.com>; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 21:06:05 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC833D.ED5BEE80@x2p12.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 650 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 20:58:54 -0500 Antonio, The resolving power of current telescopes is so bad that we are still "discovering" nearby (closer than 40 light years) star systems. Your idea of a telescope on a probe has merit. At the very least include on or more on the second (not Starwisp) mission for local astrography. Lee Parker -----Original Message----- From: Antonio C T Rocha [SMTP:arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br] Sent: Friday, June 27, 1997 4:39 PM To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re:starship-design: Go Starwisps Regarding Super-telescopes x robot probes. Why not join forces? Super-telescope robot probes! I even like the sound of it ;-) Antonio C Rocha From owner-starship-design Sat Jun 28 13:10 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["446" "Sat" "28" "June" "1997" "14:37:03" "-0500" "\"Kevin \\\"Tex\\\" Houston\"" "hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu" nil "17" "Re: starship-design: Constant 1 g Acceleration" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Constant 1 g Acceleration" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id NAA16230 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 13:10:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mhub1.tc.umn.edu (0@mhub1.tc.umn.edu [128.101.131.51]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id NAA16216 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 13:10:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maroon.tc.umn.edu by mhub1.tc.umn.edu; Sat, 28 Jun 97 15:10:13 -0500 Received: from pub-16-b-21.dialup.umn.edu by maroon.tc.umn.edu; Sat, 28 Jun 97 15:10:12 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33B567DF.3271@maroon.tc.umn.edu> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <01BC80EB.E5542C60@x2p24.gnt.com> <33B360BC.2DF2@sunherald.infi.net> <33B360F8.600A@sunherald.infi.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kevin \"Tex\" Houston" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 445 From: "Kevin \"Tex\" Houston" Sender: owner-starship-design To: Starship design group Subject: Re: starship-design: Constant 1 g Acceleration Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 14:37:03 -0500 kyle wrote: > > > Perhaps the light speed barrier is a brick wall... Give me the > jackhammer! Plastic explosive, anyone?? Perhaps a bulldozer? No, No, No, Kyle, you have to *tunnel* through it. ;) -- Kevin "Tex" Houston http://umn.edu/~hous0042/index.html Webmaster http://www.urly-bird.com/index.html "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." A. Einstein From owner-starship-design Sat Jun 28 15:35 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["251" "Sat" "28" "June" "1997" "17:34:44" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "8" "RE: starship-design: Constant 1 g Acceleration" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Constant 1 g Acceleration" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id PAA15588 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 15:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA15578 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 15:35:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p12.gnt.com (x2p27.gnt.com [204.49.68.232]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA24313 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 17:35:09 -0500 Received: by x2p12.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC83E9.9DF48E40@x2p12.gnt.com>; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 17:35:06 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC83E9.9DF48E40@x2p12.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id PAA15579 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 250 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Constant 1 g Acceleration Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 17:34:44 -0500 Kevin, I have invented a rotary gravitonic borer capable of tunnelling through 15 light years of space per hour. I will sell you one for 25 trillion GC (Galactic Credits). Please remit to... No, No, No, Kyle, you have to *tunnel* through it. ;) From owner-starship-design Sat Jun 28 21:21 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2418" "Sun" "29" "June" "1997" "00:20:30" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "51" "Re: RE: starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Go Starwisps" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id VAA17204 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:21:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout01.mail.aol.com (emout01.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.92]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA17193 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:21:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout01.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id AAA03208; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 00:20:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970629002029_-1594955411@emout01.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2417 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: lparker@cacaphony.net, owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 00:20:30 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/27/97 3:47:37 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net (L. Parker) wrote: >>I used to agree with this. But given you can probably gain >>about the same amount of info via super sized telescopes, and >>the robots would report back for decades (by then the whole >>projects likely to be obsolete). I'm woundering if robot >>probes aer very usefull? > >Kelly, > >Given sufficiently large and sensitive telescopes in outer space, you may >be right. I am not sure that we can find out everything we need to know >from telescopes though. We may eventually be able to determine the >atmospheric components of extasolar planets teh size of Earth from here, >but that sort of resolution is way beyond us now. Of course, the spaceborne >infrastructure we would need to construct and launch probes would almost >make building such a telescope an afterthought. Actually their are proposals to start building such scopes now using current tech. The idea is to launch hudreds of 1 meter scopes and land them on the Moon. Then do a phased array integration of the results. Effectivly you get a virtual scope whos lens is as big as the size of the area the group covers. Potentionally hudreds of miles across. You could get aireal photo grade immages of planets in near by star systems. >I had envisioned doing both, finding out as much as possible from here >with telescopes, then sending a probe mission if there were planets or >some other compelling reason to do so. If for instance we can determine >that there are indeed planets of near Earth size in the life zone of >Tau Ceti, and perhaps even that there was an atmosphere, it is unlikely >that we could type all of the components of that atmosphere from here. >What if there were just a few ppm of cyanide gas? We wouldn't be able >to detect that from here with a crystal ball! But knowing that there >was an atmosphere we could send a very basic probe to do initial >surveys and maybe some sampling. I'ld think we could spectral analize the atmosphers about as well from here as from a small probe. Besides. So what if the air was composed of cyanide? We can't breath it regardless, and it would still be interesting to study. Especially if we saw an ecosystem. >I agree with your point about timing, but I really don't see any other >way of doing it. > You could launch a manned mision with tghe robots as support craft. Kelly From owner-starship-design Sat Jun 28 21:21 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2936" "Sun" "29" "June" "1997" "00:20:49" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "72" "Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Go Starwisps" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id VAA17245 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:21:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout09.mail.aol.com (emout09.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.24]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA17234 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:21:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout09.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id AAA23427; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 00:20:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970629002048_-259905555@emout09.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2935 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 00:20:49 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/27/97 6:50:50 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (Zenon Kulpa) wrote: >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> In a message dated 6/25/97 11:32:50 AM, (Zenon Kulpa) wrote: >> >> >> From: "L. Parker" >> >> >> >> I just wanted >> >> everyone to see that there were FIFTY EIGHT stars within our reach NOW. >> >> If you expand that another 5 parsecs there are THOUSANDS. I think we are >> >> wasting time here...we need a couple of gigawatt free electron lasers >> >> in orbit to start pushing out Starwisps as soon as we can. >> >> We should be getting the first results back by the time we figure out >> >> a better way to push manned starships to the stars. >> >> >> >I do agree. >> > >> >Generally I consider it obvious that starting interstellar manned >> >missions must be preceded by a series of robotic flyby/pathfinder >> >missions (various scenarios of this sort were posted on this list, >> >e.g. by me and, just recently, Lee). >> >And these robotic probes are far easier to design, build and launch >> >using even today's technology. In the same time, they constitute >> >a good exercise in interstellar flight technology, >> >necessary to be advanced and tested before any attempts >> >to actually build and use a manned starship. >> >Possibly we should switch (at least for some time...) >> >into design of such robotic probe(s)? >> >> I used to agree with this. But given you can probably gain about the same >> amount of info via super sized telescopes, and the robots would report back >> for decades (by then the whole projects likely to be obsolete). >> I'm woundering if robot probes aer very usefull? >> >Hmmm, that is a point... >However: > >1st, even super sized telescopes have their limitations >(e.g., gathering such important [for manned flight] data >as radiation & other conditions in the interstellar medium >is hardly possible with a telescope), >and they may cost even more than a robotic starprobe >(see also Lee's answer to the above), and > >2nd, another (even more) important reason of sending the probes >is to test in REAL conditions the fledgling starflight technology, >before risking lives (you are, Kelly, against suicide missions, >aren't you?). > >-- Zenon You don't need to send a probe on an interstellar flight to check out the engines, and we have a fair idea of what radiation is in interstellar space. A bigger concern whould be what material is in interstellar space. If as one theory suggests, theirs traces of lots of lose carbon molecules in deep space. Runing into them at near light speeds could be real hard on a ship. It would also shread a starwhisp or micro wave sail very quickly. Probably we'ld have to assume the worst and build in counter measures. Like per blast a area of interstellar space with the big maser area and see what glowed, and launch a dust cloude ahead of the ship to blast a path clear. Kelly From owner-starship-design Sat Jun 28 21:21 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2834" "Sun" "29" "June" "1997" "00:20:54" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "63" "Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Go Starwisps" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id VAA17278 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:21:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com (emout10.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.25]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA17265 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id AAA08789; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 00:20:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970629002054_1141010669@emout10.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2833 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl, owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 00:20:54 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/27/97 7:23:30 PM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) wrote: >Kelly replied: > >>>Generally I consider it obvious that starting interstellar manned >>>missions must be preceded by a series of robotic flyby/pathfinder >>>missions (various scenarios of this sort were posted on this list, >>>e.g. by me and, just recently, Lee). >>>And these robotic probes are far easier to design, build and launch >>>using even today's technology. In the same time, they constitute >>>a good exercise in interstellar flight technology, >>>necessary to be advanced and tested before any attempts >>>to actually build and use a manned starship. >>>Possibly we should switch (at least for some time...) >>>into design of such robotic probe(s)? >> >>I used to agree with this. But given you can probably gain about the same >>amount of info via super sized telescopes, and the robots would report back >>for decades (by then the whole projects likely to be obsolete). I'm >>woundering if robot probes aer very usefull? > >First of all you'd need rather big telescopes to resolve something like a >meter. Note that big can also mean two telescopes far apart (big means >something like 1E10 meters). >This number doesn't take into account that the telescope has to gather >enough light to make a visible image. It is likely that the two telescopes >that are far apart still need to be much bigger than anything we have on >Earth to give a bright enough image. How about thousands of scopes over hundreds or thousands of miles? ;) If we can mass produce striped down hubble telescopes. ( Say simple optics for a couple million dollars each? Like clemmintine technology.) Launch a thousand scattered over hundreds of thousands of miles of space. >And there are many things we cannot figure out by light alone, that still >may be rather important for a mission. >Although I cannot estimate what would be important, I can give a few examples: >Think about the structure of the planets, and materials that can be found >there. You might be able to do some spectrography to figure out what lies on >the surface, but not what is just under it. >If there are organisms, we may like to know just a bit more than the fact >that they are there. Robots may capture/photograph them. >Kyle's question about airdensity and composition may be useful too. > >Besides that having more detail is useful for the mission, it might spark >imagination of Earth's population and get some extra money. > >Timothy The photos would spark public interest. The geology and stuff would be interesting. But if the robots got that much info, why send the people? ( a major question we never successfully resolved.) This mission would cost a fortune, and scientific curiosity never got funding for a major space program. Kelly From owner-starship-design Sat Jun 28 21:21 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1385" "Sun" "29" "June" "1997" "00:21:00" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "42" "Re: starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id VAA17309 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:21:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout13.mail.aol.com (emout13.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA17289 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:21:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout13.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id AAA01221; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 00:21:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970629002059_-627130003@emout13.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1384 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 00:21:00 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/26/97 9:58:37 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (Zenon Kulpa) wrote: >> From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) >> >> Zenon wrote: >> >> >If that [space and time being discrete] proves to >> >be true (whatever "true" exactly means), >> >it will relate to our objective quite significantly. >> > >> >Namely, it will mean that our Universe is like a 3(or more)-D >> >cellular automaton (just like a giant version of Conway's game "Life"), >> >which in turn will mean that FTL is really impossible >> >(and explain why - you cannot shift bits in your computer >> >faster than one tick of your master clock...). >> > >> >Moreover, then all will have to go digital... ;-)) >> >> Not necessarily, there may be something underneath space-time. >> That is, something that provides the building blocks for space-time. >> Just like nature provides ways to enhance the building blocks of today's >> computer (and thus allows to increase the speed of the masterclock, nature >> may also provide ways to enhance the velocity of information transfer. >> >I wonder - does the software running on a computer >have an access to the computer's master clock? >E.g., can it make it tick faster? In some computers yes, but in general the circuts run as fast as possible, since their are few times people want software to run slower. Kelly > >-- Zenon From owner-starship-design Sat Jun 28 21:21 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1679" "Sun" "29" "June" "1997" "00:21:05" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "46" "Re: starship-design: ZPF=inertia=gravity" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: ZPF=inertia=gravity" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id VAA17331 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:21:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout15.mail.aol.com (emout15.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.41]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA17317 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:21:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout15.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id AAA27908; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 00:21:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970629002104_1510023022@emout15.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1678 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu, owner-starship-design@darkwing.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: ZPF=inertia=gravity Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 00:21:05 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/25/97 10:56:40 AM, hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Kevin "Tex" Houston) wrote: >http://www.jse.com/haisch/sciences.html > >Hey, I just stumbled across this site, and it shows a promising lead in >the developement of "inertialess drives" (acceleration without the >resistance). "Reactionless drives", (inertia without acceleration) and >gravity. > >The basic thrust, is that all inertia/gravity is simply an EM >interaction between charged particles (at the quark level) and the ZPF >(Zero Point Field). If so, this might give us a way to control the >inertial mass of an object with an EM field. > >Impulse engines anyone?? > >Such control would allow spaceships to make 90 degree turns at 90% light >speed, and not disappear into a fine cloud of vapor. It could also give >you something to "push" against. The fact that it is connected with the >ZPF is astounding. > > > >-- >Kevin "Tex" Houston Interesting artical. (Thou not the easiest to read.) The fact it would integrate quantum and classic phisics in a way nothing else has sounds promising. But who knows. The authors didn't speculate on any ways to manipulate this unified mass/energy/space effect, but any manipulation could have stagering effects for star travel. If you could damp out the inertia of a ship and its fuel, but restore them as the fuels entering the engines. You could drive a starship to high sublight speed with very little thrust. In theory even with normal chemical engines. That would certainly change all our arguments about startravel. ;) Then again. Proving that these phenomino are related does mean they can be manipulated in a usable way. Kelly From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 29 09:16 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3030" "Sun" "29" "June" "1997" "18:14:11" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "70" "Re: starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id JAA27649 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 09:16:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id JAA27634 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 09:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id SAA04947; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 18:14:11 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706291614.SAA04947@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3029 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 18:14:11 +0200 (MET DST) > From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) > > >[Zenon: ] > > > >But in the "cellular automaton model" of the universe, > >*we* are the software (or rather, even something more abstract: > >the patterns of cell states produced by software, > >consider "gliders" and "spaceships" in the game of "life"...). > > I wasn't sure if I wanted to include this last time, I wish I had: > We are software that can manipulate the computer. It is like AI-"software" > in a computer that has hands and may be able to upgrade its own memory. > I wonder - what is the access protocol to the input ports of the hands? Maybe prayer? ;-) [See also at the end.] > [...] > >This amounts to local change of the topology of space > >in the cellular model. > >It is doubtful if the "patterns of cell states" > >(i.e., *we*) can do that... > > Well we would use some of natures tools that can interact with the topology > of space in a way we would like. For that matter, masses do interact with > the topology of space, all we may have to do is put them in the right > configuration. > But is the space-time topology as we now see it THE SAME as the cellular automaton topology? May be our space-time topology is quite different thing than that - it is only modeled by possibly large & complex patterns of cell activity. [But then, our lightspeed barrier c might be (much?) smaller than the cellular-automaton limit (say, Ca), and FTL (but only up to Ca) may be possible by proper interaction with the space-time-modeling patterns...] > >> >The only way to go faster within world's frame of reference > >> >would be to change the topology of cell connections: > >> >i.e., make more cells around any given one be "adjacent" > >> >to it (that is, accessible in a single tick). > >> >But this also will not make FTL possible - > >> >it will only make the limit speed (c) higher. > >> > >> True, but I suggested, that there may be something underneath > >> space-time, something that isn't discrete. > >> > >True, but then *we* would have no access to this level of the world. > > I assumed the underlying structure of space time interacts with space-time. > (If it didn't there was little use of mentioning it.) > I also assumed that interaction was in two ways: spacetime is influenced by > the underlying structure, and the underlying structure is influenced by the > presence of spacetime. > So if spacetime changes, by our influence (Eg. placing matter in a special > configuration) than we can manipulate the underlying structure. > OK, if the levels of the cellular-automaton-modeling-computer and of patterns of states of the cells are not appropriately isolated, than of course you (*we*) can theoretically do anything with the system, e.g. reprogram it completely so as all the laws of nature will be quite different than now, or even switch the computer off (Be Careful, Kyle... ;-). I wonder if the Universe would not have been switched off already, if that across-levels access were possible... ;-) -- Zenon From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 29 09:57 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1400" "Sun" "29" "June" "1997" "08:04:04" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "35" "RE: RE: starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Go Starwisps" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id JAA03803 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 09:57:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id JAA03793 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 09:57:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p12.gnt.com (x2p9.gnt.com [204.49.68.214]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA31662 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 11:57:27 -0500 Received: by x2p12.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC8483.9B1A3720@x2p12.gnt.com>; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 11:57:23 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC8483.9B1A3720@x2p12.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1399 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 08:04:04 -0500 Kelly, I think you missed my point, telescopes cannot possibly pick up trace metals and/or biocontaminants in the atmosphere at the miniscule quantities required to make an atmosphere unbreathable. The only way to do that is to sample the atmosphere. Also, for space based industry, asteroids and small high metallicity moons are more valuable, which you would have to be able to image directly from here in order to detect. The latter may be possible, but I doubt you will be able to get a spectroscopic reading at this distance. There is no point in launching a manned mission to a low value system at all. Lee Actually their are proposals to start building such scopes now using current tech. The idea is to launch hudreds of 1 meter scopes and land them on the Moon. Then do a phased array integration of the results. Effectivly you get a virtual scope whos lens is as big as the size of the area the group covers. Potentionally hudreds of miles across. You could get aireal photo grade immages of planets in near by star systems. I'ld think we could spectral analize the atmosphers about as well from here as from a small probe. Besides. So what if the air was composed of cyanide? We can't breath it regardless, and it would still be interesting to study. Especially if we saw an ecosystem. You could launch a manned mision with tghe robots as support craft. Kelly From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 29 10:03 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3148" "Sun" "29" "June" "1997" "19:01:25" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "71" "Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Go Starwisps" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id KAA04394 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 10:03:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA04384 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 10:03:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id TAA04972; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 19:01:25 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706291701.TAA04972@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3147 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 19:01:25 +0200 (MET DST) > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 6/27/97 (Zenon Kulpa) wrote: > > > >1st, even super sized telescopes have their limitations > >(e.g., gathering such important [for manned flight] data > >as radiation & other conditions in the interstellar medium > >is hardly possible with a telescope), > >and they may cost even more than a robotic starprobe > >(see also Lee's answer to the above), and > > > >2nd, another (even more) important reason of sending the probes > >is to test in REAL conditions the fledgling starflight technology, > >before risking lives (you are, Kelly, against suicide missions, > >aren't you?). > > You don't need to send a probe on an interstellar flight to check out the > engines, and we have a fair idea of what radiation is in interstellar space. > I mean REAL conditions, i.e. test the engines in true interstellar space (we do not know enough the conditions there) far away from the Sun (especially important for maser/laser beam technology - recall the aiming problem), at cruise speed (significant fraction of lightspeed) and for long time operation (is the engine durable enogh?). You cannot test all this points adequately within our system. > A bigger concern whould be what material is in interstellar space. If as > one theory suggests, theirs traces of lots of lose carbon molecules in deep > space. Runing into them at near light speeds could be real hard on a ship. > It would also shread a starwhisp or micro wave sail very quickly. > > Probably we'ld have to assume the worst and build in counter measures. Like > per blast a area of interstellar space with the big maser area and see what > glowed, and launch a dust cloude ahead of the ship to blast a path clear. > Sorry, I would not risk my life with such only theoretically working technology, even with Kelly giving me his word of honor that it will surely work for the whole round-trip... > From: KellySt@aol.com > > The geology and stuff would be interesting. But if the robots got that much > info, why send the people? (a major question we never successfully > resolved.) > As for my satisfaction, I have resolved it long ago. E.g. -- just because there are many people that WANT to be there in person... Less romantically speaking, one of the tasks that robotic probes (of the sort that will be send as pathfinders before manned missions) certainly cannot do is (human) colonization of other planets and planetary systems. Personally, I consider just the colonization to be the ultimate practical reason for space exploration (near-sol or interstellar). Hence my scenario: - robotis probes (to test adequately the technology and obtain necessary data (necessary for further stages, not for mere scientific curiosity) that are hard to obtain by other means; - one-way, outpost-building missions to selected targets; - if the returns are convincing -- the follow-up colonization missions. If there will be enough people wanting to go there and back again (round-trip enthusiasts), they may go too, why not, provided they find the money (and technology) to build them luxury tourist liners ;-) -- Zenon From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 29 15:23 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2018" "Sun" "29" "June" "1997" "17:20:49" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "50" "RE: starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Go Starwisps" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id PAA08733 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 15:23:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA08724 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 15:23:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p12.gnt.com (x2p28.gnt.com [204.49.68.233]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA13815 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 17:22:56 -0500 Received: by x2p12.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC84B1.16C02420@x2p12.gnt.com>; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 17:22:58 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC84B1.16C02420@x2p12.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2017 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 17:20:49 -0500 Kelly, I have always had a big problem with shielding requirements on interstellar flights. It doesn't even require extraordinary densities, at near relativistic speeds the IMPACT density per unit time at the front of the ship is going to be generating enough radiation to fry a small planet. At Starwisp velocities, there will be some degradation of performance, but we only need about 0.96 c for realistic missions. The probe doesn't care about time dilation. The sail material is thin enough that most particles would pass right through without even noticing it. Because of the wavelength of the propelling laser (or sunlight), it could look like swiss cheese and still be functioning with 99 percent efficiency. This brings up an interesting point, the bow wave of radiation given off by a starship travelling at near relativistic speeds should be detectable for a LONG ways. Since we have observed no such effects a few conclusions are possible: 1) There are no nearby star travelling civilizations (possible) 2) There are no star travelling civilizations (unlikely) 3) Star travelling civilizations don't travel at near relativistic velocities 4) There is no life out there... Lee Parker "Never underestimate the joy people derive from hearing something they already know." -- Enrico Fermi (1901-1954) You don't need to send a probe on an interstellar flight to check out the engines, and we have a fair idea of what radiation is in interstellar space. A bigger concern whould be what material is in interstellar space. If as one theory suggests, theirs traces of lots of lose carbon molecules in deep space. Runing into them at near light speeds could be real hard on a ship. It would also shread a starwhisp or micro wave sail very quickly. Probably we'ld have to assume the worst and build in counter measures. Like per blast a area of interstellar space with the big maser area and see what glowed, and launch a dust cloude ahead of the ship to blast a path clear. Kelly From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 29 15:24 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1152" "Sun" "29" "June" "1997" "17:15:03" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "34" "RE: starship-design: ZPF=inertia=gravity" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: ZPF=inertia=gravity" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id PAA08974 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 15:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA08946 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 15:24:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p12.gnt.com (x2p28.gnt.com [204.49.68.233]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA13804 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 17:22:51 -0500 Received: by x2p12.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC84B1.13C533A0@x2p12.gnt.com>; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 17:22:53 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC84B1.13C533A0@x2p12.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Length: 1151 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: ZPF=inertia=gravity Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 17:15:03 -0500 Kelly, IF you can manipulate inertia as this article speculates, then you won't need anything as clumsy as a chemical rocket. Think about the variables in the basic rocket equation...a bloody FLASHLIGHT would be enough! Lee Parker "Science has 'explained' nothing; the more we know the more fantastic the world becomes and the profounder the surrounding darkness." -- Aldous Huxley, 1925 Interesting artical. (Thou not the easiest to read.) The fact it would integrate quantum and classic phisics in a way nothing else has sounds promising. But who knows. The authors didn't speculate on any ways to manipulate this unified mass/energy/space effect, but any manipulation could have stagering effects for star travel. If you could damp out the inertia of a ship and its fuel, but restore them as the fuels entering the engines. You could drive a starship to high sublight speed with very little thrust. In theory even with normal chemical engines. That would certainly change all our arguments about startravel. ;) Then again. Proving that these phenomino are related does mean they can be manipulated in a usable way. Kelly From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 29 19:00 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["472" "Sun" "29" "June" "1997" "20:42:21" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "18" "starship-design: http://newton.umsl.edu/infophys/a1examp2.html" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: http://newton.umsl.edu/infophys/a1examp2.html" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id TAA20895 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 19:00:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA20842 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 19:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p12.gnt.com (x2p14.gnt.com [204.49.68.219]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA25187 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 21:00:56 -0500 Received: by x2p12.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC84CF.87B4C8C0@x2p12.gnt.com>; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 21:00:52 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC84CF.87B4C8C0@x2p12.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BC84CF.87E72360" Content-Length: 471 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: http://newton.umsl.edu/infophys/a1examp2.html Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:42:21 -0500 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC84CF.87E72360 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://newton.umsl.edu/infophys/a1examp2.html ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC84CF.87E72360 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Relativistic Accel-OneD Example.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 W0ludGVybmV0U2hvcnRjdXRdDQpVUkw9aHR0cDovL25ld3Rvbi51bXNsLmVkdS9pbmZvcGh5cy9h MWV4YW1wMi5odG1sDQo= ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC84CF.87E72360-- From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 29 20:14 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["504" "Sun" "29" "June" "1997" "21:12:47" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "15" "Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Go Starwisps" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id UAA05152 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA05127 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:13:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp10.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp10.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.82]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA29893; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 23:13:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33B73236.1E9B@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <01BC84B1.16C02420@x2p12.gnt.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 503 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, "L. Parker" Subject: Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 21:12:47 -0700 L. Parker wrote: Lee Parker wrote: > 1) There are no nearby star travelling civilizations (possible) > 2) There are no star travelling civilizations (unlikely) > 3) Star travelling civilizations don't travel at near relativistic > velocities > 4) There is no life out there... I have an addition: 5) The starfaring civilizations use gravity distortion FTL (like I propose), which would produce little or no radiation. Then again, the gamma ray bursters... Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 29 20:23 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["379" "Sun" "29" "June" "1997" "20:23:49" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "9" "Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Go Starwisps" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id UAA06926 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:23:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA06910 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:23:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (cisco-ts14-line8.uoregon.edu [128.223.150.174]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA25669 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) id UAA02892; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:23:49 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706300323.UAA02892@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <33B73236.1E9B@sunherald.infi.net> References: <01BC84B1.16C02420@x2p12.gnt.com> <33B73236.1E9B@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.32 under 19.15p6 XEmacs Lucid Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 378 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:23:49 -0700 kyle writes: > 5) The starfaring civilizations use gravity distortion FTL (like I > propose), which would produce little or no radiation. Then again, the > gamma ray bursters... Indeed, although assuming that your method wouldn't produce radiation doesn't seem warranted. GRBs appear to be very, very distant. Maybe they're the folks experimenting with zero point energy? From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 29 20:26 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2053" "Sun" "29" "June" "1997" "23:26:17" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "54" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Go Starwisps" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id UAA07227 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:26:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout06.mail.aol.com (emout06.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.97]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA07218 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:26:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout06.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA16887 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 23:26:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970629232614_-1461876659@emout06.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2052 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 23:26:17 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/29/97 10:59:56 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net (L. Parker) wrote: > >>Actually their are proposals to start building such scopes now using current >>tech. The idea is to launch hudreds of 1 meter scopes and land them on the >>Moon. Then do a phased array integration of the results. Effectivly you get >>a virtual scope whos lens is as big as the size of the area the group covers. >> Potentionally hudreds of miles across. You could get aireal photo grade >>immages of planets in near by star systems. >>> >>I'ld think we could spectral analize the atmospher about as well from here >>as from a small probe. Besides. So what if the air was composed of cyanide? >> We can't breath it regardless, and it would still be interesting to study. >> Especially if we saw an ecosystem. >> >>You could launch a manned mision with the robots as support craft. >> >>Kelly > >Kelly, > >I think you missed my point, telescopes cannot possibly pick up trace >metals and/or biocontaminants in the atmosphere at the miniscule >quantities required to make an atmosphere unbreathable. The only way >to do that is to sample the atmosphere. No atmosphere would be breathable to us. If it was earth like, the ecosystem would be deadly (or at least thats likely enough so no one who breathed it could be brought back on the ship). If it wasn't earth like it still wouldn't be breathable. >Also, for space based industry, asteroids and small high metallicity >moons are more valuable, which you would have to be able to image >directly from here in order to detect. The latter may be possible, >but I doubt you will be able to get a spectroscopic reading at this >distance. There is no point in launching a manned mission to a low >value system at all. > >Lee Why would a high value star system be worth launching to? We're awash with resources here where the market is. Why to go to the stars is a difficult question (especially at the price tages for our concepts) but minning and industrial development seem pretty unlikely. Kelly From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 29 20:27 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3742" "Sun" "29" "June" "1997" "23:26:30" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "97" "Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Go Starwisps" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id UAA07282 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:27:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout09.mail.aol.com (emout09.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.24]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA07263 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:27:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout09.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA22004; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 23:26:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <970629232622_191355469@emout09.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3741 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 23:26:30 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 6/29/97 11:04:45 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (Zenon Kulpa) wrote: >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> In a message dated 6/27/97 (Zenon Kulpa) wrote: >> > >> >1st, even super sized telescopes have their limitations >> >(e.g., gathering such important [for manned flight] data >> >as radiation & other conditions in the interstellar medium >> >is hardly possible with a telescope), >> >and they may cost even more than a robotic starprobe >> >(see also Lee's answer to the above), and >> > >> >2nd, another (even more) important reason of sending the probes >> >is to test in REAL conditions the fledgling starflight technology, >> >before risking lives (you are, Kelly, against suicide missions, >> >aren't you?). >> >> You don't need to send a probe on an interstellar flight to check out the >> engines, and we have a fair idea of what radiation is in interstellar space. >> >I mean REAL conditions, i.e. test the engines in true interstellar space >(we do not know enough the conditions there) >far away from the Sun (especially important for maser/laser beam technology - >recall the aiming problem), at cruise speed (significant fraction >of lightspeed) and for long time operation (is the engine durable enogh?). >You cannot test all this points adequately within our system. > >> A bigger concern whould be what material is in interstellar space. If as >> one theory suggests, theirs traces of lots of lose carbon molecules in deep >> space. Runing into them at near light speeds could be real hard on a ship. >> It would also shread a starwhisp or micro wave sail very quickly. >> >> Probably we'ld have to assume the worst and build in counter measures. Like >> per blast a area of interstellar space with the big maser area and see what >> glowed, and launch a dust cloude ahead of the ship to blast a path clear. >> >Sorry, I would not risk my life with such only theoretically >working technology, even with Kelly giving me his word of honor >that it will surely work for the whole round-trip... What choice do you have? If the robots take 16-20 years to report back that they made it. By then the ship would be to dated to use. Besides. Just because they made it once. Doesn't mean you, or they, will make it the next trip. >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> The geology and stuff would be interesting. But if the robots got that much >> info, why send the people? (a major question we never successfully >> resolved.) >> >As for my satisfaction, I have resolved it long ago. >E.g. -- just because there are many people >that WANT to be there in person... > >Less romantically speaking, one of the tasks that robotic probes >(of the sort that will be send as pathfinders before manned missions) >certainly cannot do is (human) colonization of other planets >and planetary systems. >Personally, I consider just the colonization to be the ultimate practical >reason for space exploration (near-sol or interstellar). Colonies are never made and maintained for in the interest in making colonies. >Hence my scenario: >- robotis probes (to test adequately the technology and obtain > necessary data (necessary for further stages, > not for mere scientific curiosity) that are > hard to obtain by other means; >- one-way, outpost-building missions to selected targets; >- if the returns are convincing -- the follow-up colonization missions. > >If there will be enough people wanting to go there and back again >(round-trip enthusiasts), they may go too, why not, provided they find >the money (and technology) to build them luxury tourist liners ;-) > >-- Zenon Now that would be one hell of a grand tour! ;) For only 500 million dollars you can really get away from it all! Kelly From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 29 20:38 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["287" "Sun" "29" "June" "1997" "21:38:10" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "10" "Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Go Starwisps" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id UAA09333 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:38:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA09323 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp10.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp10.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.82]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA05185; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 23:38:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33B7382B.6BC7@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <01BC84B1.16C02420@x2p12.gnt.com> <33B73236.1E9B@sunherald.infi.net> <199706300323.UAA02892@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 286 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, Steve VanDevender Subject: Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 21:38:10 -0700 Steve VanDevender wrote: >GRBs appear to be very, very distant. Maybe > they're the folks experimenting with zero point energy? Hey, I never thought of that... Its just crazy enough to be true! Although the prospect of ZPE making that much gamma radiation...*buzzz* Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 29 20:43 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["399" "Sun" "29" "June" "1997" "21:43:13" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "18" "starship-design: Why go to the stars?" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Why go to the stars?" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id UAA10864 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:43:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA10841 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:43:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp10.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp10.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.82]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA25732 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 23:43:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33B73960.61F8@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 398 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Why go to the stars? Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 21:43:13 -0700 Greetings all: I think I should point out some reasons for why we should go to the stars: 1) Self Preservation 2) To honor the great explorers of the past 3) Its our nature to explore 4) To boldly go where no man has gone before... (Gene Roddenberry was right about that) And most of all: 5) To learn all that is learnable. Does anyone need better reasons? If so, I have none. Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 29 21:15 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["450" "Sun" "29" "June" "1997" "23:07:06" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "13" "RE: starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Go Starwisps" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id VAA16763 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 21:15:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA16747 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 21:15:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p12.gnt.com (x2p33.gnt.com [204.49.68.238]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA01945 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 23:15:19 -0500 Received: by x2p12.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC84E2.4CA6B3C0@x2p12.gnt.com>; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 23:15:14 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC84E2.4CA6B3C0@x2p12.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 449 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 23:07:06 -0500 Estimates for distance on GRB's are just that, estimates. Like much else at the moment, all we have to go on is parallax and reasoned guesses, which is where the distance came from. Granted, it is probably correct, but you never know. Lee Parker Indeed, although assuming that your method wouldn't produce radiation doesn't seem warranted. GRBs appear to be very, very distant. Maybe they're the folks experimenting with zero point energy? From owner-starship-design Sun Jun 29 22:18 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["732" "Sun" "29" "June" "1997" "22:18:34" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "14" "RE: starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Go Starwisps" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id WAA29414 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 22:18:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id WAA29392 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 22:18:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (cisco-ts12-line16.uoregon.edu [128.223.150.148]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA06598 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 22:16:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) id WAA03186; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 22:18:34 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706300518.WAA03186@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <01BC84E2.4CA6B3C0@x2p12.gnt.com> References: <01BC84E2.4CA6B3C0@x2p12.gnt.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.32 under 19.15p6 XEmacs Lucid Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 731 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 22:18:34 -0700 L. Parker writes: > Estimates for distance on GRB's are just that, estimates. Like much else at > the moment, all we have to go on is parallax and reasoned guesses, which > is where the distance came from. Granted, it is probably correct, but you > never know. Actually, GRBs are believed to be distant because there are some (highly uncertain) redshift measurements of the assumed optical counterparts. There are no parallax measurements because no GRBs have been observeed to repeat, especially not conveniently a year apart. The most accurate parallax measurements I've heard of are around one milliarcsecond, allowing distance estimation to approximately 1000 parsecs (3200 light years), with substantial uncertainty. From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 30 03:06 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1764" "Mon" "30" "June" "1997" "12:03:24" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "44" "starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id DAA29038 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 03:06:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id DAA29025 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 03:06:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-014.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0widLa-000FuQC; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:06:14 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1763 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:03:24 +0100 Hi Zenon, >But is the space-time topology as we now see it >THE SAME as the cellular automaton topology? I guess the article suggests that. However like Lee suggested, the cells may be streched, something that I haven't seen in cellular automation. (Indeed this doesn't change the speed of c locally.) I also wonder how one would incorporate effects like timedilation into cellular automation. Speaking about time... How does this ring-universe see time? Is it continuous or discrete too (like in cellular automation). >May be our space-time topology is quite different thing >than that - it is only modeled >by possibly large & complex patterns of cell activity. >[But then, our lightspeed barrier c might be (much?) smaller >than the cellular-automaton limit (say, Ca), >and FTL (but only up to Ca) may be possible by proper interaction >with the space-time-modeling patterns...] That too could be the case. >OK, if the levels of the cellular-automaton-modeling-computer >and of patterns of states of the cells are not appropriately isolated, >than of course you (*we*) can theoretically do anything with the system, >e.g. reprogram it completely so as all the laws of nature >will be quite different than now, or even switch the computer off >(Be Careful, Kyle... ;-). >I wonder if the Universe would not have been switched off already, >if that across-levels access were possible... ;-) Maybe most mistakes will selfcontain. If you get uncontrolable mass/energy creation, you may create a blackhole which on its turn can loop ZPF around and separate the anomaly from the rest of the ZPF. Other errors may collapse to the lowest energy state (that of normal ZPF). Of course in local environments the effects are likely to be catastrophic. Timothy From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 30 03:06 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2122" "Mon" "30" "June" "1997" "12:03:21" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "59" "starship-design: Re: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Re: Go Starwisps" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id DAA29075 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 03:06:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id DAA29065 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 03:06:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-014.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0widLX-000FuLC; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:06:11 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2121 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Go Starwisps Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:03:21 +0100 Kelly, >>>I used to agree with this. But given you can probably gain about the same >>>amount of info via super sized telescopes, and the robots would report back >>>for decades (by then the whole projects likely to be obsolete). I'm >>>woundering if robot probes aer very usefull? >> >>First of all you'd need rather big telescopes to resolve something like a >>meter. Note that big can also mean two telescopes far apart (big means >>something like 1E10 meters). >>This number doesn't take into account that the telescope has to gather >>enough light to make a visible image. It is likely that the two telescopes >>that are far apart still need to be much bigger than anything we have on >>Earth to give a bright enough image. > >How about thousands of scopes over hundreds or thousands of miles? ;) If we >can mass produce striped down hubble telescopes. ( Say simple optics for a >couple million dollars each? Like clemmintine technology.) Launch a >thousand scattered over hundreds of thousands of miles of space. OK let me show: RAYLEIGH'S CRITERIA: sin(theta)=1.22 lambda/a sin(theta) is approximately equal to theta theta is apparoximately equal to d/R d/R=1.22 lambda/a -> d=1.22 R lambda/a theta =diffraction limited beam convergence angle r =separation between light source and telescope d =detail you like to be able to resolve (meters) a =diameter of the aperture lambda=wavelength to be observed You suggest an aperture of say 3000 miles = 5.556E6 meters lambda of green light 530 nm= 5.3E-7 meters distance of 10 ly = 9.46E16 m d=1.22 * 9.45E16 * 5.3E-7 / 5.556E6 = 1.1E4 metres So the maximum detail would be roughly 11 kilometers. Enough to see clouds, mountains, lakes, (cities). But not enough to see trees, (villages). >>Besides that having more detail is useful for the mission, it might spark >>imagination of Earth's population and get some extra money. > >The photos would spark public interest. Well, with your huge telescope, the best picture they could produce for an Earth sized planet would be a total planet image of about 1200x1200 pixels. Timothy From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 30 06:16 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2366" "Mon" "30" "June" "1997" "15:14:46" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "59" "Re: starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id GAA20242 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 06:16:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id GAA20152 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 06:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA00487; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 15:14:46 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706301314.PAA00487@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2365 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Quantum Gravity Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 15:14:46 +0200 (MET DST) > From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) > > >But is the space-time topology as we now see it > >THE SAME as the cellular automaton topology? > > I guess the article suggests that. However like Lee suggested, the cells > may be streched, something that I haven't seen in cellular automation. > I wonder what this stretching means for space quanta? Can we "stretch" the energy quantum? > (Indeed this doesn't change the speed of c locally.) > I also wonder how one would incorporate effects like timedilation > into cellular automation. > I have no idea (yet ;-). > Speaking about time... How does this ring-universe see time? Is it > continuous or discrete too (like in cellular automation). > In the article time has been reported to be quantized too - only then the "cellular automaton" vision and the Ca speed limit make sense. > >May be our space-time topology is quite different thing > >than that - it is only modeled > >by possibly large & complex patterns of cell activity. > >[But then, our lightspeed barrier c might be (much?) smaller > >than the cellular-automaton limit (say, Ca), > >and FTL (but only up to Ca) may be possible by proper interaction > >with the space-time-modeling patterns...] > > That too could be the case. > > >OK, if the levels of the cellular-automaton-modeling-computer > >and of patterns of states of the cells are not appropriately isolated, > >than of course you (*we*) can theoretically do anything with the system, > >e.g. reprogram it completely so as all the laws of nature > >will be quite different than now, or even switch the computer off > >(Be Careful, Kyle... ;-). > >I wonder if the Universe would not have been switched off already, > >if that across-levels access were possible... ;-) > > Maybe most mistakes will selfcontain. If you get uncontrolable mass/energy > creation, you may create a blackhole which on its turn can loop ZPF around > and separate the anomaly from the rest of the ZPF. > Other errors may collapse to the lowest energy state (that of normal ZPF). > > Of course in local environments the effects are likely to be catastrophic. > Probably many will do, but would there bee a guarantee that none can lead to switching off the entire computer? But all this is a speculation much more far-fetched than the wildest Kyle ideas, I am afraid... ;-) -- Zenon From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 30 06:29 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2089" "Mon" "30" "June" "1997" "15:27:27" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "62" "Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Go Starwisps" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id GAA22166 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 06:29:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id GAA22141 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 06:29:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA00500; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 15:27:27 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-Id: <199706301327.PAA00500@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2088 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 15:27:27 +0200 (MET DST) > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 6/29/97 (Zenon Kulpa) wrote: > > [...] > >Sorry, I would not risk my life with such only theoretically > >working technology, even with Kelly giving me his word of honor > >that it will surely work for the whole round-trip... > > What choice do you have? If the robots take 16-20 years to report back > that they made it. By then the ship would be too dated to use. > But at least we will have much more real and reliable data to be more sure the improvements will work too. > Besides. Just because they made it once. Doesn't mean you, or they, > will make it the next trip. > Of course you are right. But, at least for me, it would be more convincing that only your word of honor (no offense intended - I presume you will give it in good faith). > [...] > >Personally, I consider just the colonization to be the ultimate practical > >reason for space exploration (near-sol or interstellar). > > Colonies are never made and maintained for in the interest in making > colonies. > So what? They are made e.g. for reasons of survival... > >Hence my scenario: > >- robotis probes (to test adequately the technology and obtain > > necessary data (necessary for further stages, > > not for mere scientific curiosity) that are > > hard to obtain by other means; > >- one-way, outpost-building missions to selected targets; > >- if the returns are convincing -- the follow-up colonization missions. > > > >If there will be enough people wanting to go there and back again > >(round-trip enthusiasts), they may go too, why not, provided they find > >the money (and technology) to build them luxury tourist liners ;-) > > > >-- Zenon > > Now that would be one hell of a grand tour! ;) > Boring, with all this years in black space... > For only 500 million dollars > you can really get away from it all! > I would rather pay half that (in practice it will cost even less) and go one-way instead, sparing the rest of my fortune on materials and equipment needed for building a nice little cottage over there... -- Zenon From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 30 10:28 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["671" "Mon" "30" "June" "1997" "11:28:00" "-0700" "kyle" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "18" "starship-design: Things going on in the wonderful world of Kyledom..." "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id KAA27875 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 10:28:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA27853 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 10:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa3dsp9.gpt.infi.net (pa3dsp9.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.81]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA18975 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 13:28:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33B7FAAF.276C@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <199706301314.PAA00487@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kyle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 670 From: kyle Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Things going on in the wonderful world of Kyledom... Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:28:00 -0700 Zenon Kulpa wrote: > Probably many will do, but would there bee a guarantee > that none can lead to switching off the entire computer? Of course there would be. If there wasn't, we'd be dead now, I'm afraid...For ZPE has been done. (Over and over in THE SAME PLACE!) Then again, what happens when you do it deep in space, where no one can hear you scream.... > > But all this is a speculation much more far-fetched > than the wildest Kyle ideas, I am afraid... ;-) Beware all ye starship designers, for one of the wild Kyle ideas will be posted soon! My starship design that incorporates ZPE/FTL power/propulsion. My page will be done ~a week or so. Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 30 12:12 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["842" "Mon" "30" "June" "1997" "07:25:51" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "21" "RE: starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id MAA12403 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:12:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA12376 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:12:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p12.gnt.com (x2p5.gnt.com [204.49.68.210]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA05645 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 14:12:26 -0500 Received: by x2p12.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC855F.A1A406C0@x2p12.gnt.com>; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 14:12:23 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC855F.A1A406C0@x2p12.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 841 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 07:25:51 -0500 Steve, Your information is out of date. There has recently been an observation of a GRB that lasted long enough to get more than one telescope looking at it. Also afterwards, they confirmed the presence of a small faint object in the infrared band. They were pretty much able to confirm both its distance and the fact that it is (was) a stellar like object. Lee Parker Actually, GRBs are believed to be distant because there are some (highly uncertain) redshift measurements of the assumed optical counterparts. There are no parallax measurements because no GRBs have been observeed to repeat, especially not conveniently a year apart. The most accurate parallax measurements I've heard of are around one milliarcsecond, allowing distance estimation to approximately 1000 parsecs (3200 light years), with substantial uncertainty. From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 30 12:12 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2933" "Mon" "30" "June" "1997" "10:38:53" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "87" "RE: starship-design: Go Starwisps" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id MAA12445 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:12:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA12418 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:12:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x2p12.gnt.com (x2p5.gnt.com [204.49.68.210]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA05664 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 14:12:32 -0500 Received: by x2p12.gnt.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC855F.A566DB20@x2p12.gnt.com>; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 14:12:30 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <01BC855F.A566DB20@x2p12.gnt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2932 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Go Starwisps Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 10:38:53 -0500 I am about to shoot myself in the foot here... Personally, I would even volunteer to spend the rest of my life on a survey ship just going from star to star, perhaps not ever returning to Earth in several human lifetimes. I would even take a one way colony mission if I KNEW there was habitable real estate at the other end. I know, I argued vehmenently against one-way missions and the reader should try to distinguish my personal preferences from what I believe is realistically possible. Lee Parker Have you heard the one about a chemist who was reading a book about helium and just couldn't put it down? -----Original Message----- From: Zenon Kulpa [SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl] Sent: Monday, June 30, 1997 8:27 AM To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: Go Starwisps > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 6/29/97 (Zenon Kulpa) wrote: > > [...] > >Sorry, I would not risk my life with such only theoretically > >working technology, even with Kelly giving me his word of honor > >that it will surely work for the whole round-trip... > > What choice do you have? If the robots take 16-20 years to report back > that they made it. By then the ship would be too dated to use. > But at least we will have much more real and reliable data to be more sure the improvements will work too. > Besides. Just because they made it once. Doesn't mean you, or they, > will make it the next trip. > Of course you are right. But, at least for me, it would be more convincing that only your word of honor (no offense intended - I presume you will give it in good faith). > [...] > >Personally, I consider just the colonization to be the ultimate practical > >reason for space exploration (near-sol or interstellar). > > Colonies are never made and maintained for in the interest in making > colonies. > So what? They are made e.g. for reasons of survival... > >Hence my scenario: > >- robotis probes (to test adequately the technology and obtain > > necessary data (necessary for further stages, > > not for mere scientific curiosity) that are > > hard to obtain by other means; > >- one-way, outpost-building missions to selected targets; > >- if the returns are convincing -- the follow-up colonization missions. > > > >If there will be enough people wanting to go there and back again > >(round-trip enthusiasts), they may go too, why not, provided they find > >the money (and technology) to build them luxury tourist liners ;-) > > > >-- Zenon > > Now that would be one hell of a grand tour! ;) > Boring, with all this years in black space... > For only 500 million dollars > you can really get away from it all! > I would rather pay half that (in practice it will cost even less) and go one-way instead, sparing the rest of my fortune on materials and equipment needed for building a nice little cottage over there... -- Zenon From owner-starship-design Mon Jun 30 15:35 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1080" "Mon" "30" "June" "1997" "19:10:40" "-0300" "Antonio C T Rocha" "arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br" nil "38" "Re: starship-design: Why go to the stars?" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) id PAA10270 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 15:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br ([200.252.253.1] (may be forged)) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA10258 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 15:35:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Metacor.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (dl1247-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.247]) by srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (8.8.5/SCA-6.6) with ESMTP id WAA08251 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:31:14 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: darkwing.uoregon.edu: majordom set sender to owner-starship-design using -f Message-ID: <33B82EDF.EC05B88B@bsb.nutecnet.com.br> Organization: is unrealistic X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <33B73960.61F8@sunherald.infi.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Antonio C T Rocha Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1079 From: Antonio C T Rocha Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Why go to the stars? Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 19:10:40 -0300 kyle wrote: > Greetings all: > > I think I should point out some reasons for why we should go to the > stars: > > 1) Self Preservation > 2) To honor the great explorers of the past > 3) Its our nature to explore > 4) To boldly go where no man has gone before... (Gene Roddenberry was > right about that) > > And most of all: > 5) To learn all that is learnable. > > Does anyone need better reasons? If so, I have none. > > Kyle Mcallister For the same reasons medieval Russian peasants fled to the woods? (Maybe this falls under .1.) - To get as far away as possible form: the Boyars orders, foremen and henchmen; from the Csars Tax Collectors and press gangs, and from the Zealots bonfires.... (and keep whatever honey I find, whatever furs I trap, enjoy whatever I build, feed on whatever I hunt or raise and sing whatever I feel like, when I feel like it). Sure its optimistic, but its a reason too. In other words: to open up frontiers. I dont know about you, but earth seems too crowded for my taste, and more crowded by the minute. Antonio C Rocha