From owner-starship-design Wed Oct 1 03:20 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["466" "Wed" "1" "October" "1997" "06:18:56" "-0400" "Gertchen1@aol.com" "Gertchen1@aol.com" nil "12" "Re: starship-design: Re: Starship design" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA02988 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 03:20:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout01.mail.aol.com (emout01.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.92]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA02978 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 03:19:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout01.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id GAA11900; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 06:18:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971001061855_-1128537803@emout01.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Gertchen1@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 465 From: Gertchen1@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: KellySt@aol.com, stevev@efn.org, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu cc: tcobb@onr.com Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Starship design Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 06:18:56 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 97-10-01 03:59:57 EDT, KellySt@aol.com writes: << > We did actually consider something like your design called M.A.R.S. > > (Microwave Augmented Rocket System). In M.A.R.S. a microwave sail was used, >> Was this M.A.R.S an anime called the EYES of MARS? I told Kelly that I remembered seeing a sail ship being propelled by a laser beam, but she says she didn't think that was the anime it was from. (she's probably right ^_^;;;) Love, Gerty From owner-starship-design Wed Oct 1 03:28 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1273" "Fri" "31" "October" "1997" "12:27:24" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "38" "starship-design: Drag" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA04312 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 03:28:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA04302 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 03:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-005.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0xGM1j-001XwkC; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:29:07 +0200 (MET DST) 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: 1272 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Drag Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:27:24 +0100 Kelly you wrote: >I'm not sure, but I think we gave up on using interstellar media for drag? > Probably their just isn't enough of it to be worth using. Anyone remember? You may determine it yourself: A = effective scoop surface (m^2) v = ship's velocity (m/s) rho = density of space (kg/m^3) Mship = Ship's mass including scooping system (kg) Mdot = Total scooped mass per second (kg/s) Mdot = A*v*rho Resulting deceleration = 2*Mdot*v/Mship (F*t=p=m*v and F=M*a) Note that the deceleration is only valid for the velocity that you use. The deceleration will likely decrease when you loose speed, unless your scoop starts working better at lower speeds. This may actually happen, since for lower ship speeds the to-be-scooped particles have more time to reach the scoop mouth and thus may be scooped from further away. If you find a small deceleration for the initially high velocities, then that most likely means that you won't slow down in time. The only thing you may then try is increasing the effective scoop area. You might you should remember that it will take a long time to slow down to velocities that might have a better deceleration. Timothy P.S. Would you mind mailing me the density of the interstellar medium once again? From owner-starship-design Wed Oct 1 10:10 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["673" "Wed" "1" "October" "1997" "10:09:54" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "14" "Re: starship-design: Re: Starship design" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA01901 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:10:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA01801 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:10:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [198.68.17.19]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA10605 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:08:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA19053; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:09:54 -0700 Message-Id: <199710011709.KAA19053@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <970930221325_-295585300@emout13.mail.aol.com> References: <970930221325_-295585300@emout13.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.15p7 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: 672 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Starship design Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:09:54 -0700 KellySt@aol.com writes: > >Of course, this isn't very helpful for the return trip unless the > >travelers can build a boost beam in their target system, but I believe > >that among the other advances needed for interstellar travel, we'll have > >to advance past the notion that explorers should always return from > >their trips. > > ?! This is an advance? Throwing away a ship and crew to save fuel costs? Kelly, human history is full of explorers going on one-way trips, even intentionally. Just because such a project wouldn't be likely to get funding from a paranoid hide-bound NASA doesn't mean that it couldn't happen under different cultural conditions. From owner-starship-design Wed Oct 1 10:12 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["636" "Wed" "1" "October" "1997" "10:12:37" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "14" "Re: starship-design: Re: Starship design" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA04028 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:12:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA04007 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:12:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [198.68.17.19]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA10949 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:11:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA19063; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:12:37 -0700 Message-Id: <199710011712.KAA19063@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <971001061855_-1128537803@emout01.mail.aol.com> References: <971001061855_-1128537803@emout01.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.15p7 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: 635 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Starship design Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:12:37 -0700 Gertchen1@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 97-10-01 03:59:57 EDT, KellySt@aol.com writes: > > << > We did actually consider something like your design called M.A.R.S. > > > (Microwave Augmented Rocket System). In M.A.R.S. a microwave sail was > used, >> > Was this M.A.R.S an anime called the EYES of MARS? I told Kelly that I > remembered seeing a sail ship being propelled by a laser beam, but she says > she didn't think that was the anime it was from. (she's probably right > ^_^;;;) MARS was some sort of acronym (Mumble Augmented Ram Sail?). I certainly don't recall that it was inspired by any sort of anime. From owner-starship-design Wed Oct 1 10:36 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2830" "Wed" "1" "October" "1997" "13:32:42" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "50" "RE: starship-design: Re: Starship design" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA18296 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:36:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA18277 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:32:44 -0400 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 2829 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Starship design Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:32:42 -0400 Yes, it all depends on what role we see these explorers filling. As "Hero", it is obviously better for our psyche if they return. As "Pathfinder", returning does not seem so important (given that they could live a full life wherever they are). Certainly you'll be able to find explorers willing to go on such a one-way journey. Would we be willing to send them? As far as living a full life, this seems easier the more people that go on the journey. Living a full and happy life alone could be nearly impossible. With a few people it would be difficult. With hundreds it is simple... of course, at that point we're talking colonization, which might be beyond our scope for a first mission. The fact that our perceptions of the purpose of the mission matters is important. I am reminded of a time when I read Clarke's "Songs of Distant Earth". I always felt weirded out by the colonies, and didn't know why. Then when I got to the part where the vessel from Earth arrives I felt much better. It's because the colonies were not founded by people from Earth, but rather machines from Earth carrying genetic material. It felt... discontinuous, like it really wasn't "us" out there. Of course, it WAS us. Humans were conquering the stars - but there was no real psychological link for me. But seeding surrounding star-systems to insure the survival of the species is a perfectly valid reason for star-travel. It's just that my perception of star-travel has always been one of exploration... perhaps even Star Trek-like. So the ship from Earth "felt" much better to me. (It's not that it was from Earth that was important... the important fact is only that it is crewed by people who have more of a link to home... they could have been born in another starsystem somewhere for all I cared... as long as their parents, or parent's parent, or whatever at somepoint actually travelled from the Earth.) Same thing with cloning. If I left some DNA samples behind when I died, to be cloned five hundred years from now into a new me... well, it's not like traveling to the future, is it? It's not really ME. It's my genes, it's an identical body - but that's it. ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 "The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." > From: Steve VanDevender[SMTP:stevev@efn.org] > > Kelly, human history is full of explorers going on one-way trips, > even intentionally. Just because such a project wouldn't be likely to > get funding from a paranoid hide-bound NASA doesn't mean that it > couldn't happen under different cultural conditions. > From owner-starship-design Wed Oct 1 13:41 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil] ["791" "Wed" "1" "October" "1997" "16:41:21" "-0400" "Gertchen1@aol.com" "Gertchen1@aol.com" "<971001163645_1991279894@emout14.mail.aol.com>" "20" "Re: starship-design: Re: Starship design" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA10705 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:41:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout28.mail.aol.com (emout28.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.133]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA10682 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:41:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout28.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id QAA17320; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:41:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971001163645_1991279894@emout14.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Gertchen1@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 790 From: Gertchen1@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: stevev@efn.org, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Starship design Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:41:21 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 97-10-01 13:12:59 EDT, stevev@efn.org writes: << Gertchen1@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 97-10-01 03:59:57 EDT, KellySt@aol.com writes: > > << > We did actually consider something like your design called M.A.R.S. > > > (Microwave Augmented Rocket System). In M.A.R.S. a microwave sail was > used, >> > Was this M.A.R.S an anime called the EYES of MARS? I told Kelly that I > remembered seeing a sail ship being propelled by a laser beam, but she says > she didn't think that was the anime it was from. (she's probably right > ^_^;;;) MARS was some sort of acronym (Mumble Augmented Ram Sail?). I certainly don't recall that it was inspired by any sort of anime. >> Alright!! I found it =D!!! It is in an anime called "GALL FORCE" ^_^ From owner-starship-design Wed Oct 1 13:52 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["500" "Wed" "1" "October" "1997" "13:52:10" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "12" "Re: starship-design: Re: Starship design" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA16738 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:52:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA16634; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710012052.NAA16634@darkwing.uoregon.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <971001163645_1991279894@emout14.mail.aol.com> References: <971001163645_1991279894@emout14.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.15p7 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: 499 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: Gertchen1@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Starship design Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Gertchen1@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 97-10-01 13:12:59 EDT, stevev@efn.org writes: > > MARS was some sort of acronym (Mumble Augmented Ram Sail?). I certainly > don't recall that it was inspired by any sort of anime. > >> > Alright!! I found it =D!!! It is in an anime called "GALL FORCE" ^_^ I really don't think this is relevant to the starship-design list. We are not interested in fictional starship designs that aren't based on solid engineering and physics principles. From owner-starship-design Wed Oct 1 14:17 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1696" "Wed" "1" "October" "1997" "17:17:04" "-0400" "Gertchen1@aol.com" "Gertchen1@aol.com" nil "31" "Re: starship-design: Re: Starship design" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA03995 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:17:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout13.mail.aol.com (emout13.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA03943 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:17:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout13.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA19603; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:17:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971001171505_642377461@emout13.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Gertchen1@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1695 From: Gertchen1@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Starship design Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:17:04 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 97-10-01 16:52:24 EDT, stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu writes: << > Alright!! I found it =D!!! It is in an anime called "GALL FORCE" ^_^ I really don't think this is relevant to the starship-design list. We are not interested in fictional starship designs that aren't based on solid engineering and physics principles. >> What someone had said was talking about the sails of the ship, and the ship being guided by a laser beam. I saw the way this had been done in a move called gall Force, and was wondering if that was where it came from, or the person who thought this concept up was the one who created the movie. NOW: On anoth note, what about the concept of a drive engine for a starship taking in stray hydrogen and helium from space (there are always trace gases out there) and turning it into fuel for an afterburner. The ship wouldn't have to have the burner on at all times, just at the beginning of the voyage and in course corrections. Naturally the hull would be made of a metallic alloy, probably light unless going into a battle or going through an asteroid field. I would say that the ship would be somewhere areound a mile in length, and would be able to launch smaller shuttles, or orbiting space stations. Now I called this ship the Dreadnought, for obvious reasons due to it's length and ability to maneuver very fast in asteroid fields. It also has a secondary engine at the front, called a retro, which in event of emergency can stop the ship with, but then again the only problem is the damage sustained when a ship going some thousand feet per second slams on the brake, much like a car: things are going to get banged around ^_^; Gertie =D! From owner-starship-design Wed Oct 1 19:14 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1069" "Wed" "1" "October" "1997" "22:14:04" "-0400" "Gertchen1@aol.com" "Gertchen1@aol.com" nil "24" "Re: starship-design: Battleship galactica?" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA02216 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 19:14:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout34.mail.aol.com (emout34.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.17]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA02197 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 19:14:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout34.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id WAA10023; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:14:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971001213834_-1262706046@emout07.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Gertchen1@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1068 From: Gertchen1@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Battleship galactica? Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:14:04 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 97-10-01 19:01:40 EDT, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl writes: << We are not designing your regular "Battleship Galactica"-type of starship. It's not likely that we will have that much energy and energy to waste. Well... if we had oxygen regeneration aboard the ship, I know it can be done, I mean with about a whole deck of plants, or some other way, it can be done The interstellar matter is likely too little to be of any realistic use, unless we can scoop up matter from thousants (if not millions) of square miles. >Now I called this ship the Dreadnought, for obvious reasons due to it's >length and ability to maneuver very fast in asteroid fields. It also has a >secondary engine at the front, called a retro,... Why use a secondary engine in front? Just do a quick 180 degree rotation around one of the three axis and then fire your normal backside engine again. So we can have the ship look like a disc, one part swivels around the ship, propelling the ship the way we wish it to go. Interesting concept. Any other opinions? >> From owner-starship-design Wed Oct 1 20:53 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3088" "Wed" "1" "October" "1997" "23:52:55" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "61" "Re: RE: starship-design: Re: Starship design" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA02117 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 20:53:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com (emout10.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.25]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA02108 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 20:53:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA02220; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:52:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971001235148_337484101@emout10.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3087 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: david@actionworld.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Re: Starship design Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:52:55 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 10/1/97 11:37:04 AM, david@actionworld.com wrote: >Yes, it all depends on what role we see these explorers filling. As >"Hero", it is obviously better for our psyche if they return. As >"Pathfinder", returning does not seem so important (given that they >could live a full life wherever they are). Certainly you'll be able to >find explorers willing to go on such a one-way journey. Would we be >willing to send them? Would we be willing to send them, certainly not. In a way exactly because our inability to bring them back proves they arn't pathfinders. I.E. their is no path for travel to and fro. Given that, sending them is an expensive, and frivilous lark of no practical benifit. Much less a sick joke on the crew. >As far as living a full life, this seems easier the more people that go >on the journey. Living a full and happy life alone could be nearly >impossible. With a few people it would be difficult. With hundreds it >is simple... of course, at that point we're talking colonization, which >might be beyond our scope for a first mission. Or beyond our technical capacity, much less the folk back homes willing to fund for the life of the crew. >The fact that our perceptions of the purpose of the mission matters is >important. I am reminded of a time when I read Clarke's "Songs of >Distant Earth". I always felt weirded out by the colonies, and didn't >know why. Then when I got to the part where the vessel from Earth >arrives I felt much better. It's because the colonies were not founded >by people from Earth, but rather machines from Earth carrying genetic >material. It felt... discontinuous, like it really wasn't "us" out >there. Of course, it WAS us. Humans were conquering the stars - but >there was no real psychological link for me. But seeding surrounding >star-systems to insure the survival of the species is a perfectly valid >reason for star-travel. It's just that my perception of star-travel has >always been one of exploration... perhaps even Star Trek-like. So the >ship from Earth "felt" much better to me. (It's not that it was from >Earth that was important... the important fact is only that it is crewed >by people who have more of a link to home... they could have been born >in another starsystem somewhere for all I cared... as long as their >parents, or parent's parent, or whatever at somepoint actually travelled >from the Earth.) > >Same thing with cloning. If I left some DNA samples behind when I died, >to be cloned five hundred years from now into a new me... well, it's not >like traveling to the future, is it? It's not really ME. It's my >genes, it's an identical body - but that's it. Goiod point, and relavant. "we" Human beings, wern't exploring. We were comisioning robots to do the exploration for us, but we had no involvement in it. No more then we would applauded the NASA HR departments heroic exploration of the moon. They never explored the moon, the astrounauts did. >----------------------------------------------------------------- >David Levine Kelly From owner-starship-design Wed Oct 1 20:53 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["742" "Wed" "1" "October" "1997" "23:53:10" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "21" "starship-design: Re: broken links" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA02166 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 20:53:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA02132 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 20:53:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA12330; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:53:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971001235143_1664858190@emout07.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 741 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: seilert@nac.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: broken links Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:53:10 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 10/1/97 6:15:21 PM, you wrote: >A few minor questions... besides a few broken links, which is explained >by the under construction image, I thought I might reccommend to you >that you get the brochure up ASAP, because there really isnt much >expalining the LIT or what it does in detail. Being a web page author >myself, that page would have been one of my priorities. I would like to >know a little more about LIT and was wondering who I should contact, >and/or if the brochure will be up soon. > > -Sean Eilert I'll forward your comment to the group, but I'm afraid what you see is what we've got. Also we're kinda stalled on working on the site on the moment. Sorry for the confusion and any annoyance. Kelly From owner-starship-design Wed Oct 1 20:55 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1680" "Wed" "1" "October" "1997" "23:54:47" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "49" "Re: starship-design: Drag" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA03530 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 20:55:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout17.mail.aol.com (emout17.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.43]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA03520 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 20:55:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout17.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA11143; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:54:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971001235203_231870657@emout17.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1679 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Drag Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:54:47 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 10/1/97 4:28:27 AM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >Kelly you wrote: > >>I'm not sure, but I think we gave up on using interstellar media for drag? >> Probably their just isn't enough of it to be worth using. Anyone remember? > >You may determine it yourself: > >A = effective scoop surface (m^2) >v = ship's velocity (m/s) >rho = density of space (kg/m^3) >Mship = Ship's mass including scooping system (kg) >Mdot = Total scooped mass per second (kg/s) > >Mdot = A*v*rho > >Resulting deceleration = 2*Mdot*v/Mship (F*t=p=m*v and F=M*a) > > >Note that the deceleration is only valid for the velocity that you use. The >deceleration will likely decrease when you loose speed, unless your scoop >starts working better at lower speeds. >This may actually happen, since for lower ship speeds the to-be-scooped >particles have more time to reach the scoop mouth and thus may be scooped >from further away. > >If you find a small deceleration for the initially high velocities, then >that most likely means that you won't slow down in time. The only thing you >may then try is increasing the effective scoop area. You might you should >remember that it will take a long time to slow down to velocities that might >have a better deceleration. > > >Timothy > >P.S. Would you mind mailing me the density of the interstellar medium once >again? Who me? Last guess I had was in the paper in LIT about RAm Scoops. Even then G.E.S. and I were pretty sure we were just guess at the interstellar densities. Estimates range from A hydrogen atome per every couple cubic centimeters, to Thousands of times that weight in carbon molecules. Kelly From owner-starship-design Wed Oct 1 20:55 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1260" "Wed" "1" "October" "1997" "23:54:58" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "29" "Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Starship design" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA03570 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 20:55:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout14.mail.aol.com (emout14.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA03549 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 20:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout14.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA02081; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:54:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971001235152_1857068110@emout14.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1259 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: stevev@efn.org, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Starship design Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:54:58 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 10/1/97 11:10:19 AM, stevev@efn.org wrote: >KellySt@aol.com writes: > > >Of course, this isn't very helpful for the return trip unless the > > >travelers can build a boost beam in their target system, but I believe > > >that among the other advances needed for interstellar travel, we'll have > > >to advance past the notion that explorers should always return from > > >their trips. > > > > ?! This is an advance? Throwing away a ship and crew to save fuel costs? > >Kelly, human history is full of explorers going on one-way trips, >even intentionally. Just because such a project wouldn't be likely to >get funding from a paranoid hide-bound NASA doesn't mean that it >couldn't happen under different cultural conditions. Explorers never go on one way trips. The whole idea was for them to come back and report on what they found, and bring back samples. In many cases I'ld agree that NASA is hide-bound, but in this one its far more then that. We as a culture don't like, and won't support throwing away a ship and crew for no good reason, and saving fuel money isn't anywhere near a good enough reason. I.E. if we can get them back, we must. If we technically can't get them back, theirs little reason to send them. Kelly From owner-starship-design Wed Oct 1 21:09 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1473" "Wed" "1" "October" "1997" "21:09:15" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "27" "Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Starship design" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA07510 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:09:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA07494 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:09:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (cisco-ts16-line15.uoregon.edu [128.223.150.215]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA07369 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:07:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA20711; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:09:15 -0700 Message-Id: <199710020409.VAA20711@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <971001235152_1857068110@emout14.mail.aol.com> References: <971001235152_1857068110@emout14.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.15p7 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: 1472 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Starship design Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:09:15 -0700 KellySt@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 10/1/97 11:10:19 AM, stevev@efn.org wrote: > >Kelly, human history is full of explorers going on one-way trips, > >even intentionally. Just because such a project wouldn't be likely to > >get funding from a paranoid hide-bound NASA doesn't mean that it > >couldn't happen under different cultural conditions. > > Explorers never go on one way trips. The whole idea was for them to come > back and report on what they found, and bring back samples. > > In many cases I'ld agree that NASA is hide-bound, but in this one its far > more then that. We as a culture don't like, and won't support throwing away > a ship and crew for no good reason, and saving fuel money isn't anywhere near > a good enough reason. I.E. if we can get them back, we must. If we > technically can't get them back, theirs little reason to send them. You're still missing the point. You continue to apply _our_ cultural standards, or more specifically your particular preconceptions about them, to the process of exploration, but I'm quite sure that it will be a different culture than ours (although perhaps one descended from it) that goes to the stars, and it may be one that fully accepts that the people who go to the stars may not come back. If human nature was truly such that people only went on journeys of exploration to eventually return to their place of origin, we wouldn't be inhabiting every continent on Earth now. From owner-starship-design Thu Oct 2 02:52 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["393" "Sat" "1" "November" "1997" "11:51:33" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "12" "Re: starship-design: Drag" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA14865 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 02:52:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA14850 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 02:52:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-010.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0xGhwn-001YIJC; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:53:29 +0200 (MET DST) 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: 392 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: Drag Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 11:51:33 +0100 To Kelly, >Who me? Last guess I had was in the paper in LIT about RAm Scoops. Even >then G.E.S. and I were pretty sure we were just guess at the interstellar >densities. Estimates range from A hydrogen atome per every couple cubic >centimeters, to Thousands of times that weight in carbon molecules. OK, thanks. I remembered you having a number before, that's why I asked you. Timothy From owner-starship-design Thu Oct 2 02:53 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1306" "Sat" "1" "November" "1997" "11:51:31" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "33" "Re: starship-design: Battleship galactica?" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA14929 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 02:53:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA14917 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 02:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-010.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0xGhwl-001YITC; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:53:27 +0200 (MET DST) 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: 1305 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: Battleship galactica? Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 11:51:31 +0100 Hi Gertie, >>We are not designing your regular "Battleship Galactica"-type of starship. >>It's not likely that we will have that much energy and energy to waste. > >Well... if we had oxygen regeneration aboard the ship, I know it can be done, >I mean with about a whole deck of plants, or some other way, it can be done *IF* we had oxygen regeneration. That 'if' can only be true when we have some energy source. Hence the problem is back to: From where do we get the energy/power? BTW. Are you suggesting the oxygen is used for human breathing? If so, that problem is one of our smallest. The energy that we humans use is quite little compared to the energy used by the engines that propell the ship. Eg. A 90HP car engine at full power uses roughly 500 times more power than a human does. >>Why use a secondary engine in front? Just do a quick 180 degree rotation >>around one of the three axis and then fire your normal backside engine >>again. > >So we can have the ship look like a disc, one part swivels around the ship, >propelling the ship the way we wish it to go. Interesting concept. Any other >opinions? Not part of the ship turns around. I assumed this ship was small and thus could easely turn around as a whole. Note that after having turned around, it is flying backwards. Timothy From owner-starship-design Thu Oct 2 13:17 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1787" "Thu" "2" "October" "1997" "16:16:55" "-0400" "Gertchen1@aol.com" "Gertchen1@aol.com" nil "39" "Re: starship-design: Battleship galactica?" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA20845 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:17:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout25.mail.aol.com (emout25.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.130]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA20796 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:17:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout25.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id QAA23506; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 16:16:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971002161250_878161626@emout08.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Gertchen1@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1786 From: Gertchen1@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Battleship galactica? Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 16:16:55 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 97-10-02 14:27:39 EDT, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) writes: << IF* we had oxygen regeneration. That 'if' can only be true when we have some energy source. Hence the problem is back to: From where do we get the energy/power? BTW. Are you suggesting the oxygen is used for human breathing? If so, that problem is one of our smallest. The energy that we humans use is quite little compared to the energy used by the engines that propell the ship. Eg. A 90HP car engine at full power uses roughly 500 times more power than a human does. >>Why use a secondary engine in front? Just do a quick 180 degree rotation >>around one of the three axis and then fire your normal backside engine >>again. > >So we can have the ship look like a disc, one part swivels around the ship, >propelling the ship the way we wish it to go. Interesting concept. Any other >opinions? Not part of the ship turns around. I assumed this ship was small and thus could easely turn around as a whole. Note that after having turned around, it is flying backwards. >> Now, a word about "Battlestar Galactica". many people may joke about this, but unfortunately it is frighteningly real. If the russians could create a warship and actually get it into space, that would make them superior to us. Now, saying that it's common sense to assume that there is other life besides us, isn't a wise precaution to assume that there is life out there that is hostile? I dunno about you, but I would much rather go into an unknown system with guns ready, and lots of armor than to go into a system saying "hi! I wanna be your friend!" only to discover this race of being shoot, then shoot again, shoot again, and ask no questions later. Just my two bits ^_~ Gerty From owner-starship-design Thu Oct 2 14:59 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1398" "Sat" "1" "November" "1997" "23:58:04" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "29" "Re: starship-design: Battleship galactica?" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA28364 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:59:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA28314 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-019.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0xGtHr-001XvuC; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 23:59:59 +0200 (MET DST) 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: 1397 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: Battleship galactica? Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 23:58:04 +0100 Gertchen1@aol.com has been writing: >Now, a word about "Battlestar Galactica". many people may joke about this, >but unfortunately it is frighteningly real. If the russians could create a >warship and actually get it into space, that would make them superior to us. Who are "us"? With current Russian economy, they'll be happy if they can afford enough money to participate in the International Space Station. If the Russians would start making a 1 mile long starship, there would be plenty of time for "us" to notice their plans and catch up with them. >Now, saying that it's common sense to assume that there is other life besides >us, isn't a wise precaution to assume that there is life out there that is >hostile? I dunno about you, but I would much rather go into an unknown system >with guns ready, and lots of armor than to go into a system saying "hi! I >wanna be your friend!" only to discover this race of being shoot, then shoot >again, shoot again, and ask no questions later. If they are an advanced culture, then even with our most advanced weapons, we are no match for them. If they aren't an advanced culture, then obviously there's no danger. The chance that they are similarly advanced as we are is so small that I think it is not worth bothering about. (Besides that, if they are at a similar technological stage, we would have received radio signals from them.) Timothy From owner-starship-design Fri Oct 3 05:58 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["945" "Thu" "2" "October" "1997" "15:01:35" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "25" "RE: starship-design: Re: Starship design" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA05727 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 05:58:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA05717 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 05:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p42.gnt.com [204.49.68.247]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA15753 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 07:58:51 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 07:58:42 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCCFD2.2A7C4400.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 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: 944 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Starship design Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:01:35 -0500 On Wednesday, October 01, 1997 12:10 PM, Steve VanDevender [SMTP:stevev@efn.org] wrote: > KellySt@aol.com writes: > > >Of course, this isn't very helpful for the return trip unless the > > >travelers can build a boost beam in their target system, but I > > >believe > > >that among the other advances needed for interstellar travel, we'll > > >have > > >to advance past the notion that explorers should always return from > > >their trips. > > > > ?! This is an advance? Throwing away a ship and crew to save fuel > > costs? > > Kelly, human history is full of explorers going on one-way trips, > even intentionally. Just because such a project wouldn't be likely to > get funding from a paranoid hide-bound NASA doesn't mean that it > couldn't happen under different cultural conditions. Not to disagree Steve, but just which explorer went out KNOWING he wasn't coming back? I can't think of a single example right now... Lee From owner-starship-design Fri Oct 3 06:18 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2191" "Fri" "3" "October" "1997" "08:13:47" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "55" "RE: starship-design: Battleship galactica?" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA09795 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 06:18:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA09784 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 06:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p42.gnt.com [204.49.68.247]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA16764; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:18:06 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:17:55 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCCFD4.D9C95CC0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 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: 2190 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'Gertchen1@aol.com'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Battleship galactica? Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:13:47 -0500 On Thursday, October 02, 1997 3:17 PM, Gertchen1@aol.com [SMTP:Gertchen1@aol.com] wrote: > Now, a word about "Battlestar Galactica". many people may joke about this, > > but unfortunately it is frighteningly real. If the russians could create > a > warship and actually get it into space, that would make them superior to > us. > Now, saying that it's common sense to assume that there is other life > besides > us, isn't a wise precaution to assume that there is life out there that > is > hostile? I dunno about you, but I would much rather go into an unknown > system > with guns ready, and lots of armor than to go into a system saying "hi! I > wanna be your friend!" only to discover this race of being shoot, then > shoot > again, shoot again, and ask no questions later. > > Just my two bits ^_~ > Gerty Gerty, We had already discussed this somewhat. Any first probe of a system will likely be a high speed flyby of an unmanned robot that is so small it won't be easy to detect. This is less for our benefit than it is for the benefit of the inhabitants. We may not want to make our presence known to them irregardless of their tech base, or aggressiveness. Plus, there is no need to send a manned colony ship (expensive) type of explorer to an empty system. As to "stumbling" into a system full of aggressive xenos, it isn't likely to happen for the following reasons: 1) Any race capable of causing us significant damage is detectable at interstellar distances 2) No races have been detected in our local region of the galaxy - we've looked. Therefore, since there are no inhabitants of the nearest 200 stars or so, we should be able to explore them in relative safety. The only bet this leaves uncovered is if we accidentally stumble on another exploration ship at the fringes of our current detection range. By which time we would probably be well invested on fifty or so planets spread across 100 light years of space. This event is so far in the future it doesn't merit worrying about. Battlestar Galactica is a space opera written to entertain, it has very little attention to reality or fact. Reality is too boring to make good TV fare. Lee Parker From owner-starship-design Fri Oct 3 10:47 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1142" "Fri" "3" "October" "1997" "13:47:01" "-0400" "Gertchen1@aol.com" "Gertchen1@aol.com" nil "30" "Re: starship-design: Battleship galactica?" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA00429 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 10:47:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout41.mail.aol.com (emout41.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.59]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA00419 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 10:47:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout41.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id NAA22140; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 13:47:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971003134141_1957552990@emout17.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Gertchen1@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1141 From: Gertchen1@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Battleship galactica? Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 13:47:01 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 97-10-03 09:18:20 EDT, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: << 2) No races have been detected in our local region of the galaxy - we've looked. But what about another galaxy? Therefore, since there are no inhabitants of the nearest 200 stars or so, we should be able to explore them in relative safety. The only bet this leaves uncovered is if we accidentally stumble on another exploration ship at the fringes of our current detection range. BUT What if we sent out a ship and discovred a ship that cannot be detected? What does our radars detect? Life forms? What if they're all robot? What if the ship's outer hull prevents scanning? What about radar jamming? By which time we would probably be well invested on fifty or so planets spread across 100 light years of space. This event is so far in the future it doesn't merit worrying about. But why wait until something does happen until we react? Battlestar Galactica is a space opera written to entertain, it has very little attention to reality or fact. Reality is too boring to make good TV fare. Unfortunately, you are right -_-; Gertie >> From owner-starship-design Fri Oct 3 11:30 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2697" "Fri" "3" "October" "1997" "13:29:50" "-0700" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "62" "starship-design: My two cents (was Re: Battleship Galactica?)" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA27495 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:30:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27476 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:30:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dcp2-92.gpt.infi.net (dcp2-92.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.92]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA19708 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:30:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <343555B2.7515@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <01BCCFD4.D9C95CC0.lparker@cacaphony.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Length: 2696 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: My two cents (was Re: Battleship Galactica?) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 13:29:50 -0700 L. Parker wrote: > We had already discussed this somewhat. Any first probe of a system will > likely be a high speed flyby of an unmanned robot that is so small it won't > be easy to detect. An advanced civilization could easily detect a probe of this kind. > This is less for our benefit than it is for the benefit > of the inhabitants. We may not want to make our presence known to them > irregardless of their tech base, or aggressiveness. Plus, there is no need > to send a manned colony ship (expensive) type of explorer to an empty > system. > > As to "stumbling" into a system full of aggressive xenos, it isn't likely > to happen for the following reasons: > > 1) Any race capable of causing us significant damage is detectable at > interstellar distances Most SETI researchers say this, but one must take into account the possibility that they perform 'signal cleansing' and covert communication with their colonies. Or they may use transmission types we cannot detect with our current radio telescopes/maser detectors (interference transmissions, non-omnidirectional radio transmission, tachyons, etc.) Note to physicists: Don't repeat the causality-problems with tachyons. Sagan, Drake, Orgel, Kardashev, et al have speculate on this. I think I can too. > 2) No races have been detected in our local region of the galaxy - we've > looked. Actually, they may have been. The random, non-repeating signals that could be of artificial origin in this region of space have according to the late Carl Sagan "not been adequately investigated in a scientific manner". According to Drake, Kardashev, et al: "Over the distances of space, owing to the diffuse gas and dust, signals may be diffused, resulting in little or no contact by merely accidental means." Most signals die out after a few light years. A few, according to the September 1971 Armenia conference on SETI, may occasionally leak through, producing "random, non-repeating signals that could concievably be mistaken for a natural celestial source". > This event is so far in the future it doesn't merit > worrying about. I seem to recall that statement being made by a king of one of the ancient middle-eastern empires...shortly before the Kassites invaded and slaughtered them... Granted, if they're advanced, they probably wouldn't want to fight. What I'm worried about is humans. Human beings are just stupid enough to provoke something like this. Then the stuff wil REALLY hit the fan. In other words: See alien. Say "Hi" and don't make any sudden moves. If they say "Greetings" or such, respond in kind. If they say "Scram!", leave fast. Don't argue with an advanced civilization. Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design Fri Oct 3 11:42 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["624" "Fri" "3" "October" "1997" "11:42:05" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "14" "starship-design: My two cents (was Re: Battleship Galactica?)" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA06886 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:42:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA06857 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:42:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [198.68.17.19]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA17511 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:40:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA26102; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:42:05 -0700 Message-Id: <199710031842.LAA26102@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <343555B2.7515@sunherald.infi.net> References: <01BCCFD4.D9C95CC0.lparker@cacaphony.net> <343555B2.7515@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.15p7 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: 623 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: My two cents (was Re: Battleship Galactica?) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:42:05 -0700 Kyle R. Mcallister writes: > Note to physicists: Don't repeat the causality-problems > with tachyons. Sagan, Drake, Orgel, Kardashev, et al have speculate on > this. I think I can too. Apparently they (and you) were speculating without bothering to check their physics. Aside from the causality problems, a quantum mechanical analysis of tachyons shows that they can't be used for FTL communication: either a tachyon travels FTL, but doesn't interact with our universe, or it doesn't travel FTL. Authority counts for nothing in science. Just because an authority speculates about something doesn't mean it's true. From owner-starship-design Fri Oct 3 11:58 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["810" "Fri" "3" "October" "1997" "13:58:20" "-0700" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "21" "Re: starship-design: My two cents (was Re: Battleship Galactica?)" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA20548 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA20487 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:58:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dcp2-92.gpt.infi.net (dcp2-92.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.92]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA22571 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:58:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <34355C6B.3A9E@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <01BCCFD4.D9C95CC0.lparker@cacaphony.net> <343555B2.7515@sunherald.infi.net> <199710031842.LAA26102@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Length: 809 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: My two cents (was Re: Battleship Galactica?) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 13:58:20 -0700 Steve VanDevender wrote: > > Kyle R. Mcallister writes: > > Note to physicists: Don't repeat the causality-problems > > with tachyons. Sagan, Drake, Orgel, Kardashev, et al have speculate on > > this. I think I can too. > > Apparently they (and you) were speculating without bothering to check > their physics. Aside from the causality problems, a quantum mechanical > analysis of tachyons shows that they can't be used for FTL > communication: either a tachyon travels FTL, but doesn't interact with > our universe, or it doesn't travel FTL. I did not know this. Can you reccomend where I could get information on this? > > Authority counts for nothing in science. Just because an authority > speculates about something doesn't mean it's true. I suppose thats true. It was just an example though. From owner-starship-design Fri Oct 3 12:05 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1346" "Fri" "3" "October" "1997" "12:05:02" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "33" "Re: starship-design: My two cents (was Re: Battleship Galactica?)" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA24006 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:05:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wakko.efn.org (wakko.efn.org [198.68.17.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA23972 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [198.68.17.19]) by wakko.efn.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA20924 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:03:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA26159; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:05:02 -0700 Message-Id: <199710031905.MAA26159@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <34355C6B.3A9E@sunherald.infi.net> References: <01BCCFD4.D9C95CC0.lparker@cacaphony.net> <343555B2.7515@sunherald.infi.net> <199710031842.LAA26102@tzadkiel.efn.org> <34355C6B.3A9E@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.15p7 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: 1345 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: My two cents (was Re: Battleship Galactica?) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:05:02 -0700 Kyle R. Mcallister writes: > Steve VanDevender wrote: > > > > Kyle R. Mcallister writes: > > > Note to physicists: Don't repeat the causality-problems > > > with tachyons. Sagan, Drake, Orgel, Kardashev, et al have speculate on > > > this. I think I can too. > > > > Apparently they (and you) were speculating without bothering to check > > their physics. Aside from the causality problems, a quantum mechanical > > analysis of tachyons shows that they can't be used for FTL > > communication: either a tachyon travels FTL, but doesn't interact with > > our universe, or it doesn't travel FTL. > > I did not know this. Can you reccomend where I could get information on > this? There's a brief article with a more detailed analysis of tachyons at: http://sunsite.unc.edu/lunar/school/library/tachyons.html It's an excerpt from the sci.physics FAQ, which is also good reading. > > Authority counts for nothing in science. Just because an authority > > speculates about something doesn't mean it's true. > > I suppose thats true. It was just an example though. There is certainly a possibility that more advanced civilizations use communications methods that we can't detect at multi-light-year distances. Even our civilization is starting to use methods that radiate less to the universe (cable, lasers, etc.). From owner-starship-design Fri Oct 3 16:14 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["510" "Mon" "3" "November" "1997" "01:13:12" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "15" "RE: starship-design: Drag" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA21024 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:14:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA20990 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:14:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hengelo-007.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0xHGw8-002X1HC; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 01:15:08 +0200 (MET DST) 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: 509 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: Drag Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 01:13:12 +0100 Hello Lee, >I have seen a density map of our "local bubble" and the several "bubbles" >around it. The area of the bubble which you would consider the surface can >get pretty dense. The area within the bubbles are thin, and to make >matters more unpredictable, they aren't homogeneous, that is, the density >varies somewhat even within the bubble, and there are "rivers" running >through them. This is interesting. I wonder how this information was obtained. I'm eager to read more about it. Timothy From owner-starship-design Fri Oct 3 23:13 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1768" "Sat" "4" "October" "1997" "02:13:10" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "45" "Re: Re: starship-design: Battleship galactica?" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA18953 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 23:13:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout12.mail.aol.com (emout12.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.38]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA18873 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 23:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout12.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id CAA09552 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 02:13:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971004021309_1476910930@emout12.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1767 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, Gertchen1@aol.com Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Battleship galactica? Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 02:13:10 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 10/2/97 3:59:47 PM, you wrote: >Gertchen1@aol.com has been writing: > >>Now, a word about "Battlestar Galactica". many people may joke about this, >>but unfortunately it is frighteningly real. If the russians could create a >>warship and actually get it into space, that would make them superior to us. > >Who are "us"? >With current Russian economy, they'll be happy if they can afford enough >money to participate in the International Space Station. >If the Russians would start making a 1 mile long starship, there would be >plenty of time for "us" to notice their plans and catch up with them. Hell even with us paying them for their parts they still can't contribute their sections. >>Now, saying that it's common sense to assume that there is other life besides >>us, isn't a wise precaution to assume that there is life out there that is >>hostile? I dunno about you, but I would much rather go into an unknown system >>with guns ready, and lots of armor than to go into a system saying "hi! I >>wanna be your friend!" only to discover this race of being shoot, then shoot >>again, shoot again, and ask no questions later. > >If they are an advanced culture, then even with our most advanced weapons, >we are no match for them. If they aren't an advanced culture, then obviously >there's no danger. The chance that they are similarly advanced as we are is >so small that I think it is not worth bothering about. (Besides that, if >they are at a similar technological stage, we would have received radio >signals from them.) > >Timothy As a nit, even unadvanced animals could pose a MAJOR danger. Did you know some folks think T-Rex's might have hunted in packs? First rule of old explorers. Where ever you go, bring a BIG gun! ;) From owner-starship-design Mon Oct 6 08:30 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1355" "Mon" "6" "October" "1997" "11:25:53" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "37" "RE: starship-design: Drag" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Drag" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA18536 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 08:30:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA18305 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 08:30:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:25:54 -0400 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 1354 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, "'TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Drag Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:25:53 -0400 Maybe this is a reference to the sponge-like 3-d maps drawn of galaxy positions? Sounds like it. Of course, if that's what were talking about here then it's not useful for a scoop-drive. We're talking very different scales. ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 "The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." > ---------- > From: > TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl[SMTP:TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl] > Reply To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl > Sent: Sunday, November 02, 1997 8:13 PM > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: RE: starship-design: Drag > > Hello Lee, > > >I have seen a density map of our "local bubble" and the several > "bubbles" > >around it. The area of the bubble which you would consider the > surface can > >get pretty dense. The area within the bubbles are thin, and to make > >matters more unpredictable, they aren't homogeneous, that is, the > density > >varies somewhat even within the bubble, and there are "rivers" > running > >through them. > > This is interesting. I wonder how this information was obtained. > I'm eager to read more about it. > > Timothy > From owner-starship-design Tue Oct 7 21:26 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1059" "Wed" "8" "October" "1997" "00:25:46" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "43" "starship-design: Fwd: The Replicator Option" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Fwd: The Replicator Option" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA04625 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:26:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout18.mail.aol.com (emout18.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.44]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA04614 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:26:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout18.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id AAA13625 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 00:25:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971008002334_1392485293@emout18.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1058 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Fwd: The Replicator Option Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 00:25:46 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 10/4/97 7:32:17 PM, pbdennis@ultranet.ca wrote: >Hi, > >I was surfing by and noticed your interest in space technology. > >I have a popular web site called The Environmental Crisis and NASA's >Proposal that presents a new and stunning justification for a new and >stunning space program. It's activist and it's hot! > >Thought I'd invite you by. > > -Paul. > http://www.ultranet.ca/vsa/nasa.html > > mirror: http://mypage.direct.ca/p/pbdennis/nasa.html --------------------- Forwarded message: From: pbdennis@ultranet.ca (Paul B. Dennis) Reply-to: pbdennis@ultranet.ca To: KellySt@aol.com Date: 97-10-04 21:32:17 EDT Hi, I was surfing by and noticed your interest in space technology. I have a popular web site called The Environmental Crisis and NASA's Proposal that presents a new and stunning justification for a new and stunning space program. It's activist and it's hot! Thought I'd invite you by. -Paul. http://www.ultranet.ca/vsa/nasa.html mirror: http://mypage.direct.ca/p/pbdennis/nasa.html From owner-starship-design Tue Oct 7 21:44 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1059" "Wed" "8" "October" "1997" "00:43:36" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "43" "starship-design: Fwd: The Replicator Option" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Fwd: The Replicator Option" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA11283 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:44:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout30.mail.aol.com (emout30.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.135]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA11262 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:44:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout30.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id AAA28664 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 00:43:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971008002334_1392485293@emout18.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1058 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Fwd: The Replicator Option Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 00:43:36 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 10/4/97 7:32:17 PM, pbdennis@ultranet.ca wrote: >Hi, > >I was surfing by and noticed your interest in space technology. > >I have a popular web site called The Environmental Crisis and NASA's >Proposal that presents a new and stunning justification for a new and >stunning space program. It's activist and it's hot! > >Thought I'd invite you by. > > -Paul. > http://www.ultranet.ca/vsa/nasa.html > > mirror: http://mypage.direct.ca/p/pbdennis/nasa.html --------------------- Forwarded message: From: pbdennis@ultranet.ca (Paul B. Dennis) Reply-to: pbdennis@ultranet.ca To: KellySt@aol.com Date: 97-10-04 21:32:17 EDT Hi, I was surfing by and noticed your interest in space technology. I have a popular web site called The Environmental Crisis and NASA's Proposal that presents a new and stunning justification for a new and stunning space program. It's activist and it's hot! Thought I'd invite you by. -Paul. http://www.ultranet.ca/vsa/nasa.html mirror: http://mypage.direct.ca/p/pbdennis/nasa.html From owner-starship-design Wed Oct 8 15:11 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5530" "Wed" "8" "October" "1997" "16:09:36" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "119" "starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 76 (fwd)" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA01434 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 15:11:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA01397 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 15:11:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p14.gnt.com [204.49.68.219]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA30737 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:11:09 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:10:59 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCD40D.25ABA300.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 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: 5529 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 76 (fwd) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:09:36 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: Chris W. Johnson [SMTP:chrisj@mail.utexas.edu] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 5:49 PM To: Single Stage Rocket Technology News Subject: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 76 (fwd) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 22:04:25 -0400 (EDT) From: NSS List Account To: DC-X Subject: Space Access Update #76 10/3/97 (fwd) Reply-To: delta-clipper@world.std.com Space Access Update #76 10/3/97 Copyright 1997 by Space Access Society ________________________________________________________________________ stories this issue: - NASA FY'98 Appropriation Conference Results, Bantam News & Opinions (Space Access Society's sole purpose is to promote near-term radical reductions in the cost of reaching space. You may redistribute this Update in any medium you choose, as long as you do it whole and intact. Contact us for permission to use excerpts beyond "fair use" limits.) ________________________________________________________________________ NASA Funding Conference Finished Conference Report To Be Filed Real Soon Now The House and Senate finished thrashing out their differences on the FY'98 HUD/VA/Independent Agencies (NASA) Appropriations Bill for FY'98 on Tuesday September 30th, just as well since FY'98 started Wednesday October 1st. Actually, the resulting bill hasn't been filed yet as of this writing; as we understand how these things work, the staffers are still getting all the changes typed in. This and other funding bills didn't quite make it in time; the US Federal government is currently operating under a "continuing resolution" that keeps the money flowing at last year's levels until all the FY'98 appropriations are ready, likely around the middle of this month. Not bad given that the process has often stretched into late November in recent years. We do know a little bit about this NASA appropriation, even though it hasn't been filed yet. We hear that the total came in at the higher House amount of $13.648 billion (versus the Senate's $13.5 billion), that $100 million of the added money went for Space Station overruns in addition to $130 million reallocated to Station from various other NASA accounts. We hear there was no specific provision for "Future X" in this bill - any such spending this year will now have to come out of existing NASA technology funds, at the discretion of NASA HQ. We don't anticipate any major "Future X" initiatives this year. (No surprises on X-33 and X-34, by the way - both are funded as expected this year, to the best of our knowledge.) - Bantam News We hear there was $20 million specifically set aside to continue the "Bantam" smallsat-launcher technology project, which by the way has apparently weathered the losing bidder protest we reported last Update. We understand this provision was pushed by Senator Shelby of Alabama, presumably related to the project being run by MSFC (NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center) in Huntsville. We've had a chance to consult various of our advisors on Bantam, and we've come to the conclusion that we disagree strongly with MSFC's current preferred approach, picking two winners then funding each to the tune of $40 million or so over the next couple years to build prototype lightsat launchers with a low ($1.5 million) per-mission cost goal. For one thing, the government shouldn't be in the business of picking winners; it's demonstrably lousy at doing this. (MSFC's recent record leads us to predict any such final Bantam selection would be made on political rather than technical/financial grounds - specifically, we think Summa would win for their connection to one of the big two aerospace outfits and for bidding what MSFC wants to build, FasTrac engine and all, while we expect Aerojet's upgraded Aerobee sounding rocket would win the second slot for being the least threatening to the status quo. But what do we know...) For another, there are a half-dozen or so non-Bantam-winner startup companys aiming at the lightsat launch market with a mix of reusable and expendable vehicles, all of whom can say to the government with considerable justification "don't fund my competitors." We think the way to encourage the new lightsat launcher companies on a level playing field is to put all future Bantam funding into forty or so $1.5 million launch vouchers, to be handed out to NASA small science satellite teams, these vouchers to be redeemable for cash only after the satellite in question has been successfuly placed in its proper orbit. This will provide an assured market all the startups can point to in their efforts to secure commercial development funding, rather than the government financing one or two politically-picked "winners" and scaring commercial investment away from the rest - what investor in his right mind wants to compete with the government? NASA will end up getting cheaper, more reliable lightsat launches from a wider variety of commercial sources if they *don't* try to pick winners. Fund succesful launches, not succesful lobbying efforts - put the Bantam funds into launch vouchers. And that's all for this week... ________________________________________________________________________ Space Access Society http://www.space-access.org space.access@space-access.org "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the Solar System" - Robert Anson Heinlein From owner-starship-design Wed Oct 8 15:11 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1023" "Wed" "8" "October" "1997" "16:17:57" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "32" "RE: starship-design: Battleship galactica?" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA01492 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 15:11:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA01471 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 15:11:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p14.gnt.com [204.49.68.219]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA30746; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:11:21 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:11:17 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCD40D.30601D80.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 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: 1022 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" , "'Gertchen1@aol.com'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Battleship galactica? Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:17:57 -0500 On Friday, October 03, 1997 12:47 PM, Gertchen1@aol.com [SMTP:Gertchen1@aol.com] wrote: > But what about another galaxy? > If they can get here from another galaxy and they are hostile, I am looking for a rock to hide under, there is absolutely NOTHING else we can do... > BUT What if we sent out a ship and discovred a ship that cannot be > detected? > What does our radars detect? Life forms? What if they're all robot? What > if > the ship's outer hull prevents scanning? What about radar jamming? > If they can do all of that, then I am still looking for that rock... > But why wait until something does happen until we react? > Because, I am not going to waste valuable time worrying about something that is not only improbable, but implausible. > Battlestar Galactica is a space opera written to entertain, > it has very little attention to reality or fact. Reality is too boring to > > make good TV fare. > Unfortunately, you are right -_-; I'm glad to see we agree on at least one thing. Lee Parker From owner-starship-design Wed Oct 8 21:46 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["426" "Thu" "9" "October" "1997" "00:46:08" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "12" "Re: RE: starship-design: Drag" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Drag" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA12889 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 21:46:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout02.mail.aol.com (emout02.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.93]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA12858 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 21:46:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout02.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id AAA02014; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 00:46:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971009004605_643068193@emout02.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 425 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: david@actionworld.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Drag Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 00:46:08 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 10/6/97 9:52:02 AM, david@actionworld.com wrote: >Maybe this is a reference to the sponge-like 3-d maps drawn of galaxy >positions? Sounds like it. Of course, if that's what were talking about >here then it's not useful for a scoop-drive. We're talking very >different scales. No I have heard that Sol is inside part of a 800 light year bubble thined down by a super nova blast a few centuries back. From owner-starship-design Wed Oct 8 21:47 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["906" "Thu" "9" "October" "1997" "00:46:28" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "29" "starship-design: Re: life" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Re: life" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA13055 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 21:47:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout05.mail.aol.com (emout05.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.96]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA13005 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 21:46:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout05.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id AAA21784 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 00:46:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971009004609_1932201293@emout05.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 905 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: MHissom42@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: life Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 00:46:28 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 10/7/97 3:57:44 PM, you wrote: >Can you tell me where I might find information about possible biologys not based >on earthly norms? Such as liquids other than water, gases other than oxygen, and >based on some element or chemical other than carbon? Very high temp., or very low >temp.? Does anyone have any reserch or speculations on any of these possibilities? >If you you have thoughts or ideas along these lines and would like to pass them >on to me or discuss them via e-mail please feel free to do so. Thanks in advance >for any help you can give me. > > > Michael Sorry, I don't have any addresses off hand. But lots of folks have speculated on it. The Discovery channel ran an interesting show on possible forms for aliens in the last week. Perhaps their web site lists links? Kelly Starks From owner-starship-design Thu Oct 9 06:06 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["484" "Wed" "8" "October" "1997" "19:19:27" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "18" "starship-design: Timothy - The 120 pc Map" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Timothy - The 120 pc Map" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA17085 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 06:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA17073 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 06:06:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p26.gnt.com [204.49.68.231]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA17959 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:06:19 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:06:16 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCD48A.379331A0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 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_01BCD48A.37A3FA80" Content-Length: 483 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Timothy - The 120 pc Map Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:19:27 -0500 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCD48A.37A3FA80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://spacsun.rice.edu/~twg/pc120.html ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCD48A.37A3FA80 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Send Mail Message.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 W0ludGVybmV0U2hvcnRjdXRdDQpVUkw9aHR0cDovL3NwYWNzdW4ucmljZS5lZHUvfnR3Zy9wYzEy MC5odG1sDQpNb2RpZmllZD1BMDgyNzdDMTQ4RDRCQzAxMzMNCg== ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCD48A.37A3FA80-- From owner-starship-design Thu Oct 9 06:06 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["817" "Wed" "8" "October" "1997" "18:17:53" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "23" "RE: Re: starship-design: Battleship galactica?" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Battleship galactica?" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA17167 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 06:06:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA17128 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 06:06:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p26.gnt.com [204.49.68.231]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA17954; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:06:14 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:06:08 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCD48A.330E93E0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 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: 816 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'KellySt@aol.com'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: Battleship galactica? Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:17:53 -0500 On Saturday, October 04, 1997 1:13 AM, KellySt@aol.com [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: > > > As a nit, even unadvanced animals could pose a MAJOR danger. Did you > know > some folks think T-Rex's might have hunted in packs? > > First rule of old explorers. Where ever you go, bring a BIG gun! ;) I wasn't suggesting that prudent weaponry wasn't a good idea, just pointing out that 100 gigajoule grasers weren't likely to be needed in our LOCAL area. If you want armament on an exploration vessel, I would agree that it might be wise, just in case. However, I still think that we should be able to detect anything we are capable of successfully fighting at interstellar distances, and anything we can't detect is either too primitive to worry about, or so advanced we might as well not bother. Lee Parker From owner-starship-design Thu Oct 9 06:22 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["597" "Thu" "9" "October" "1997" "08:10:23" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "19" "RE: RE: starship-design: Drag" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Drag" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA19906 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 06:22:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA19879 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 06:22:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p26.gnt.com [204.49.68.231]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA19057; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:21:57 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:21:53 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCD48C.661FC7C0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 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: 596 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'KellySt@aol.com'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Drag Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:10:23 -0500 On Wednesday, October 08, 1997 11:46 PM, KellySt@aol.com [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: > > In a message dated 10/6/97 9:52:02 AM, david@actionworld.com wrote: > > >Maybe this is a reference to the sponge-like 3-d maps drawn of galaxy > >positions? Sounds like it. Of course, if that's what were talking about > >here then it's not useful for a scoop-drive. We're talking very > >different scales. > > > No I have heard that Sol is inside part of a 800 light year bubble thined > down by a super nova blast a few centuries back. Correct, except it was a little farther back than that... Lee From owner-starship-design Thu Oct 9 06:22 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1280" "Thu" "9" "October" "1997" "08:20:14" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "30" "starship-design: For Timothy - The 120 pc Map" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: For Timothy - The 120 pc Map" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA19930 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 06:22:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA19907 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 06:22:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p26.gnt.com [204.49.68.231]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA19070 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:22:02 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:21:58 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCD48C.695C5520.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 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_01BCD48C.69657CE0" Content-Length: 1279 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: For Timothy - The 120 pc Map Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:20:14 -0500 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCD48C.69657CE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit While the interstellar medium as a whole has an average density of about 0.5 atom per cubic centimeter, the interior of the Local Bubble has a density of 0.05 - 0.07 atoms/cc. Although believed to have been formed by a supernova in the same way that the Loop I bubble was formed, the Local Bubble is not spherical. Rather, it is elliptical or egg-shaped with its longer axis roughly perpendicular to the Galactic plane (see Frisch and York, 1983, ApJ Letters). This may be due to the reduction in density of the ISM away from the plane, so that the supernova bubble expanded preferentially in this direction, faster into the thinner gas. Or could it be that the Local Bubble was originally spherical but it is being flattened on the sides by the expansion of neighboring bubbles? http://spacsun.rice.edu/~twg/pc120.html ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCD48C.69657CE0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Send Mail Message (2).url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 W0ludGVybmV0U2hvcnRjdXRdDQpVUkw9aHR0cDovL3NwYWNzdW4ucmljZS5lZHUvfnR3Zy9wYzEy MC5odG1sDQpNb2RpZmllZD1DMDEyMEU5RkI1RDRCQzAxQzUNCg== ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCD48C.69657CE0-- From owner-starship-design Thu Oct 9 08:30 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["890" "Thu" "9" "October" "1997" "11:26:27" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "24" "RE: RE: starship-design: Drag" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Drag" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA26807 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:30:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA26790 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:30:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:26:27 -0400 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 889 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Drag Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:26:27 -0400 > ---------- > From: L. Parker[SMTP:lparker@cacaphony.net] > Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Drag > > On Wednesday, October 08, 1997 11:46 PM, KellySt@aol.com > > No I have heard that Sol is inside part of a 800 light year bubble > thined > > down by a super nova blast a few centuries back. > > Correct, except it was a little farther back than that... > > Lee > Right. If you're talking 800 light years in diameter, it was at the very least four centuries ago, and that assumes the shell travelled at near light-speed, which is unlikely. ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 "The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." From owner-starship-design Thu Oct 9 20:01 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1230" "Thu" "9" "October" "1997" "23:00:38" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "40" "Re: RE: Re: starship-design: Battleship galactica?" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA25273 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:01:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout13.mail.aol.com (emout13.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA25224 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:01:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout13.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA15067; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:00:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971009225848_553376460@emout13.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1229 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: Re: starship-design: Battleship galactica? Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:00:38 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 10/9/97 7:06:32 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >On Saturday, October 04, 1997 1:13 AM, KellySt@aol.com >[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: >> >> >> As a nit, even unadvanced animals could pose a MAJOR danger. Did you >> know >> some folks think T-Rex's might have hunted in packs? >> >> First rule of old explorers. Where ever you go, bring a BIG gun! ;) > > >I wasn't suggesting that prudent weaponry wasn't a good idea, just pointing >out that 100 gigajoule grasers weren't likely to be needed in our LOCAL >area. If you want armament on an exploration vessel, I would agree that it >might be wise, just in case. Agreed. Just pointing out the ground craft should probably look more like APC's then dune buggies. ;) >However, I still think that we should be able to detect anything we are >capable of successfully fighting at interstellar distances, and anything we >can't detect is either too primitive to worry about, or so advanced we >might as well not bother. Look at the bright side. Anything advanced wandering into the area will see earths radio and power grid noise a LONG way out. So if they are hostile they'ld head for here, not the target starsystem. ;) >Lee Parker Kelly From owner-starship-design Fri Oct 10 08:34 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["433" "Fri" "10" "October" "1997" "07:01:32" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "17" "RE: RE: Re: starship-design: Battleship galactica?" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA22729 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:34:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA22580 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:34:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p32.gnt.com [204.49.68.237]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA19820 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:34:35 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:34:31 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCD568.182934C0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 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: 432 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: Re: starship-design: Battleship galactica? Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 07:01:32 -0500 On Thursday, October 09, 1997 10:01 PM, KellySt@aol.com [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: > > Look at the bright side. Anything advanced wandering into the area will > see > earths radio and power grid noise a LONG way out. So if they are hostile > they'ld head for here, not the target starsystem. > If I were a xenophobe, I would be more worried about Earth's emission levels than running into bad guys out there. Lee Parker From owner-starship-design Sun Oct 12 20:42 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1209" "Sun" "12" "October" "1997" "23:41:50" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "35" "starship-design: Re: sites" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA05842 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 20:42:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout32.mail.aol.com (emout32.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA05803 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 20:42:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout32.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA29525 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 23:41:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971012233913_-1462405782@emout04.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1208 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design To: MHissom42@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: sites Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 23:41:50 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 10/10/97 12:48:39 PM, you wrote: >By the way, you have one of the coolest sites on the web. Keep up the good work, >we drasticly need a champion for exploration and expotation of the solar system. >(I need a spelling checker on my e-mail!) I have long argued that the earth is >just the starting point for our species. I don't carry much influence, but everyone >needs to try. I look forward to the expansion of your site. If you like I could >send you a poem I wrote about the subject. I wrote it to protest the apathy of >our government towards space exploration. > > >Michael Thanks. Gland you liked the site. Yeah the public isn't very space interested, so the gov treats it as a works program for their districts. NASA geting pretty bad at working more to control space, rather then opening it. On the other hand industrial intrests are driving a lot of work towadr low cost launchers, and the military has gotten interested in developing spaceplanes for their purposes. With two powerfull interest groups like that pushing, things will move. Send the poem, I'll forward it to the group. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Oct 16 16:11 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1219" "Thu" "16" "October" "1997" "16:08:49" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "24" "starship-design: administrivia" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA21749 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 16:11:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA20067; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 16:08:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710162308.QAA20067@darkwing.uoregon.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.15p7 XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1218 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: administrivia Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 16:08:49 -0700 (PDT) Just a small note to current subscribers (or something to pass on to potential subscribers): Majordomo on lists.uoregon.edu has been upgraded to version 1.94.4. This has gone quite smoothly, and probably you won't even notice the changes. However, there is one significant user-visible change for people who are subscribing or resubscribing to starship-design. When you subscribe to starship-design by sending the command "subscribe starship-design" to majordomo@lists.uoregon.edu, instead of being immediately subscribed, you will receive a confirmation message from Majordomo with instructions on how to confirm your subscription. The subscription will not take effect until the confirmation is sent. This helps prevent the possibility of people forging subscriptions to mailing lists using other people's addresses (an increasingly common problem). As a result of my work on the upgrade I also now know a few more Majordomo tricks, including how to set it up to accept postings from people who want to post from more than one address but subscribe at only one address. If you're one of the people who has had difficulty getting your posting address and subscription address to match, let me know privately. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Oct 16 19:59 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5239" "Thu" "16" "October" "1997" "22:59:02" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "208" "starship-design: Re: Comments on your site as if you need them and approval of your subject." "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA06249 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout18.mail.aol.com (emout18.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.44]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA06234 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:59:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout18.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id WAA15829; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:59:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971016225622_273917187@emout18.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 5238 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: mglewis@nwlink.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Comments on your site as if you need them and approval of your subject. Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:59:02 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 10/12/97 11:28:13 AM, you wrote: >Dear Mr. Kelly St, > > > >The web is a neat place because it forms a permanent and instantaneous > >record > >so work on very long-range projects like developing the solar system have a > >chance > >from the outset, to be saved if they are of value. Early thought is always > >of value > >later. > > > >I want to share the possible scenarios I see since you can include that if > >you > >see fit. This is looking at it from the archaeological history of the > >world which > >persistently seems to imply that dynasties and empires won't move very fast > > > >in exploring and developing the solar system, but they will move > >determinedly, > >persistently, and with as much certainty as possible, to become implacable. > >For spaceflight, this means we will probably be in near-earth exploration > >for a > >long time, sending unmanned missions to the planets for a long time (many > >decades) and won't send manned missions to the planets for somewhat longer > >time than most enthusiasts currently believe, probably more like thirty > >years > >at least and then at high risk. The most important manned missions will > >not > >even begin for upwards of a century, and the length of time for any serious > >development will not begin even on Mars for several centuries unless there > >are enormous breakthroughs in lift and propulsion. This is curious given the far faster rates of exploration in more recent frounteirs (africa, US west, north sea, etc) and the fast rates going on now in space. In general the critical factor in a frountier is money, I.E. how much can you make there. Space currently is relativly hard to access (I.E. no commercial transport lines) but is fundamentally as easy and cheap to get to as another continent and posseses effectivly unlimited resouces of easy access. This would tend to promote a faster development cycle. >The lift and propulsion is really important. If we discover some > >antigravity or > >gravity neutralizing system, then we will probably invest in exploration > >and > >development of the solar system heavily within decades of the discovery. > >If we don't, it will be really slow. This would be helpfull, but unnnessisary. Current fissil fuel technology allows transit to and from space at a cost similar to trans-ocean air travel. Travel around in space, is easier and cheaper. On the other hand their are a lot of technologies like fusion, or beamed power that could greatly lower costs and increase speeds. Ironicly fusion rockets could prove a far bigger market, then fusion power systems. This could get some serious interest in fussion research again. >And the extensive colonization and development of stable, self-sufficient > >or > >nearly self-sufficient colonies even on Mars will not take place for many > >centuries, probably more like a millennium. Kind of dry, but you know, > >the farmland ain't got water, and the air is thin... We have not even > >begun > >to develop the Sahara or many of the other deserts of the Earth (I'm not > >condemning solar system work, it will merely take longer than is often > >believed, yet nonetheless is still infinitely important and quite exciting) > >and the deserts have all the air you want and water can be piped in from > >only a few hundred miles away at most. I'm dubious about colonizing Mars or the other planets. What for? Mars is at best a unhealthy area of high radiation, low gravity, and toxic soil. All that on the bottom of a gravity well making it far harder to economically transport supplies and products back and forth. I expect we'll bypass the planets except for tourism and exploration. >Getting to the stars is super of course. It is disappointing that our > >solar system > >does not have more than one readily habitable planet (unless we discover > >that after > >all some kind of organism can adapt readily to conditions on one or more of > >the > >planets and that does not seem obvious). (I'm trying to be cool and dry > >and look > >at the slowest case scenarios while sanctioning interest, fascination, > >excitement > >and enthusiasm for these projects.) Anyway, finding at least one other > >habitable > >(and possibly inhabited) planet for life is as important to us as having > >another > >door on our houses, or two eyes in the groups of the Japanese game of Go. > >It's > >serious business, close to the heart of survival, and there are areas where > >people > >become very serious about it in the long run--even in the very long run I > >have > >described. People have often commented that if Mars had looked more like SF novels of half a century ago thought it would, we'ld have a much more active space program. Bottom line, we didn't find anywhere people really wanted to go to that badly. >The Moon might be a different scenario, because it is very tempting to put, > >say, > >an astronomical observatory, or other installations, on the moon and this > >will > >probably be sort of the next big thing, probably in the coming century. > > > >Well, that's the scenario of the slow. > > > >Keep up the good work, > > > > > >Mike Lewis > >Seattle Thanks for your interest in the site. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Oct 17 18:05 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["10984" "Fri" "17" "October" "1997" "18:05:14" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "241" "starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 77 (fwd)" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 77" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA12619 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 18:05:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA12606 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 18:05:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p0.gnt.com [204.49.68.205]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA00085 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 20:05:22 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 20:05:16 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCDB37.FC5F00A0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 10983 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 77 (fwd) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 18:05:14 -0500 My own added comments: This is the one "backup" program that should not have been cut. It is not just a crucial defense technology (even my six year old son understands the importance of controlling the high ground) but it was the single program outside of NASA's influence that seemed to have a chance of producing real, beneficial technological advances. By cutting this program, for whatever reasons, Hamre has just hamstrung America's chance to maintain its technological lead in space research. Lee Parker -----Original Message----- From: Chris W. Johnson [SMTP:chrisj@mail.utexas.edu] Sent: Friday, October 17, 1997 12:43 PM To: Single Stage Rocket Technology News Subject: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 77 (fwd) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 01:50:46 -0400 (EDT) From: NSS List Account To: DC-X Subject: Space Access Update #77 10/16/97 (fwd) Reply-To: delta-clipper@world.std.com Space Access Update #77 10/16/97 Copyright 1997 by Space Access Society ________________________________________________________________________ stories this issue: - Air Force "Spaceplane" Startup Funding Line-Item Vetoed ** SAS Alert: Contact Your Representative, Both Senators, ASAP ** Urge Override of Defense Appropriation Line-Item Vetoes ________________________________________________________________________ (Space Access Society's sole purpose is to promote near-term radical reductions in the cost of reaching space. You may redistribute this Update in any medium you choose, as long as you do it whole and intact. Contact us for permission to use excerpts beyond "fair use" limits.) ________________________________________________________________________ Cheap Space Access Tech Development Vetoed On advice of Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre, the President marked the fiftieth anniversary of Chuck Yeager's historic sound-barrier mission by line-item vetoing both the present and the future of ultra high-speed flight. Leading the list of thirteen vetoed items from the FY'98 DOD Appropriation were $39m continued operations funding for the SR-71 high speed reconaissance/research aircraft, plus $10m startup funding for a USAF low-cost/fast-turnaround reusable rocket technology program known as "Military Spaceplane" or MSP. (SAS has strongly supported MSP as having significant benefits both commercial and military.) Also vetoed were the Clementine II miniature asteroid probe and an Army theatre ASAT technology project, plus nine other small projects the majority of which were advanced technology development efforts. Some of these projects were controversial, but only one ("Defense Techlink Rural Technology") even made our Pork-O-Meter quiver. The money saved by these vetoes is miniscule, $144 million out of a $248 billion FY'98 Defense budget, roughly six one-hundredths of one percent of the total. We single out Hamre because at the White House press briefing he made it clear that he was the one who'd come up with the final list of cuts. (Before his recent promotion to Deputy Secretary of Defense under new SecDef William Cohen, John Hamre was the OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] Comptroller who shut down DC-X for most of a year by refusing to release its funding.) The White House's main purpose in this action was apparently to establish procedures for how the new line-item veto power will be exercised - White House OMB Director Frank Raines said repeatedly that he is focussing on how this will end up changing the overall White House-Congress relationship in crafting funding bills. We believe that Deputy SecDef Hamre, in coming up with a list heavily weighted toward high-payoff advanced technology projects, has allowed institutional political biases to color his advice to the White House, has contravened published White House space policy, is damaging the US technology base (and thus future US national security), and is also damaging White House relations with Congress, likely with adverse consequences for smooth implementation of the new line-item veto law. In the case of Military Spaceplane, we have considerable evidence that Hamre has also flat-out lied in stating "these are the items for which we really don't have a military requirement in the Department" and in assuring the White House of the same. We have a copy of a letter from CINCSPACE, the general commanding Air Force Space Command, outlining MSP progress and calling it a "key program". We are told CINCSPACE has put in place a formal military requirement for this program, complete with a "conops" (concept of operations) and a mention in the Air Force POM (Program Objective Memorandum, the Air Force's future budget-planning document). Hamre's office was informed of all this last Friday; they apparently chose to ignore these facts and plow ahead regardless. Without going into detail, the evidence suggests Hamre subscribes to a school of thought that considers radically cheaper decentralized space access to be destabilizing, and supports limiting the spread of affordable launch technology both here and abroad. We respectfully suggest that basic missile/spacelaunch technology is spreading wide and fast despite strenuous efforts to contain it. Rather than continue futile attempts to close the barn door after the horse is already gone, perhaps we should devote a bit more attention to outpacing the metaphorical horse by developing advanced affordable RLV technology? ________________________________________________________________________ - Political Alert - We understand that the procedure for overturning line-item vetoes to a funding bill is a simple majority up-or-down vote on the whole package. We strongly urge all interested parties to contact their Representative and both their Senators, and ask them to support a vote to override these Defense Appropriation line-item vetoes. Get contact info at: http://www.vote-smart.org (have your local zipcode ready) - Background - - What is "Military Spaceplane"? Nope, it doesn't necessarily have wings or jet engines. What it's supposed to work toward is airplane- like *operating characteristics* - between-mission turnarounds measured in hours not weeks, ground support by tens of mechanics not hundreds of white-labcoat types, operating bases that can be set up in days with a few truckloads of gear, not multi-year construction projects. The goal is to be able to fly a variety of space missions on hours rather than months notice, for a million or so per flight rather than hundreds of millions. In the near-term, this would probably mean a reusable rocket. And yes, Virginia, this capability would have commercial as well as military applications, and no, NASA X-33 even if it meets every last one of its stated goals will fall far short of this mark - NASA apparently had problems envisioning anything beyond modest incremental improvements to their own current capabilities in setting up X-33. Some at NASA still seem to believe it's not their job to develop RLV technology for any missions but their own, with an implicit dismissal of military and commercial requirements. - US National Space Policy, September 1996: Some Quotes Access to and use of space is central for preserving peace and protecting U.S. national security as well as civil and commercial interests. ... (2) The goals of the U.S. space program are to: ... (b) Strengthen and maintain the national security of the United States; (c) Enhance the economic competitiveness, and scientific and technical capabilities of the United States; ... (4) The U.S. Government will maintain and coordinate separate national security and civil space systems where differing needs dictate. National Security Space Guidelines ... (3) National security space activities shall contribute to U.S. national security by: (a) providing support for the United States' inherent right of self-defense and our defense commitments to allies and friends; (b) deterring, warning, and if necessary, defending against enemy attack; (c) assuring that hostile forces cannot prevent our own use of space; (d) countering, if necessary, space systems and services used for hostile purposes; (e) enhancing operations of U.S. and allied forces; (f) ensuring our ability to conduct military and intelligence space-related activities; (g) satisfying military and intelligence requirements during peace and crisis as well as through all levels of conflict; (h) supporting the activities of national policy makers, the intelligence community, the National Command Authorities, combatant commanders and the military services, other federal officials, and continuity of government operations. (4) Critical capabilities necessary for executing space missions must be assured. This requirement will be considered and implemented at all stages of architecture and system planning, development, acquisition, operation, and support. ... Intersector Guidelines The following paragraphs identify priority intersector guidance to support major United States space policy objectives. ... (2) Space Transportation (a) Assuring reliable and affordable access to space through U.S. space transportation capabilities is fundamental to achieving national space policy goals. Therefore, the United States will: (i) Balance efforts to modernize existing space transportation capabilities with the need to invest in the development of improved future capabilities; (ii) Maintain a strong transportation capability and technology base to meet national needs for space transport of personnel and payloads; (iii) Promote reduction in the cost of current space transportation systems while improving their reliability, operability, responsiveness, and safety; (iv) Foster technology development and demonstration to support a future decision on the development of next generation reusable space transportation systems that greatly reduce the cost of access to space; ________________________________________________________________________ Space Access Society http://www.space-access.org space.access@space-access.org "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the Solar System" - Robert Anson Heinlein From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Oct 19 09:24 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1461" "Sun" "19" "October" "1997" "12:24:04" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "48" "Re: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 77 (fwd)" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 77" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA25729 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Oct 1997 09:24:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.95]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA25718 for ; Sun, 19 Oct 1997 09:24:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id MAA14583; Sun, 19 Oct 1997 12:24:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971019122244_-991242595@emout04.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1460 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 77 (fwd) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 12:24:04 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 10/17/97 7:05:51 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >My own added comments: > >This is the one "backup" program that should not have been cut. It is not >just a crucial defense technology (even my six year old son understands the >importance of controlling the high ground) but it was the single program >outside of NASA's influence that seemed to have a chance of producing real, >beneficial technological advances. By cutting this program, for whatever >reasons, Hamre has just hamstrung America's chance to maintain its >technological lead in space research. > >Lee Parker > >-----Original Message----- >From: Chris W. Johnson [SMTP:chrisj@mail.utexas.edu] >Sent: Friday, October 17, 1997 12:43 PM >To: Single Stage Rocket Technology News >Subject: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 77 (fwd) > > > >Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 01:50:46 -0400 (EDT) >From: NSS List Account >To: DC-X >Subject: Space Access Update #77 10/16/97 (fwd) >Reply-To: delta-clipper@world.std.com > > > > Space Access Update #77 10/16/97 > Copyright 1997 by Space Access Society >________________________________________________________________________ > >stories this issue: > > - Air Force "Spaceplane" Startup Funding Line-Item Vetoed AAAAAHHHHH!! Just what we need, a DOD exec who wants to keep space access expensive and rare for reasons of national security! Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Oct 19 16:28 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["964" "Sun" "19" "October" "1997" "14:28:55" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "32" "RE: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 77 (fwd)" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 77" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA03611 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Oct 1997 16:28:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA03553 for ; Sun, 19 Oct 1997 16:28:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p12.gnt.com [204.49.68.217]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA04936; Sun, 19 Oct 1997 18:28:32 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 19 Oct 1997 18:28:22 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCDCBC.C7D4B6A0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 963 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'KellySt@aol.com'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 77 (fwd) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 14:28:55 -0500 On Sunday, October 19, 1997 11:24 AM, KellySt@aol.com [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: > > >stories this issue: > > > > - Air Force "Spaceplane" Startup Funding Line-Item Vetoed > > > AAAAAHHHHH!! > > Just what we need, a DOD exec who wants to keep space access expensive > and > rare for reasons of national security! > > Kelly Kelly, Unfortunately, it is likely to backfire in his face instead. As the update intimated, it would be just too bad if everyone BUT the U.S. military had cheap, quick access to space. Let's see, some two bit backwater country highjacks a British Airways orbital cargo flight after sneaking a small (10 megatons or so) nuclear device aboard. After threatening Washington D.C. with total annihilation if we don't pay them 100 billion or so we have to "ask" for help from the British SAS since we declined to invest the money to build our own military surface to orbit strike capability. Gee, how embarrassing... Lee Parker From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Oct 20 14:33 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2340" "Mon" "20" "October" "1997" "16:32:25" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "63" "RE: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 77 (fwd)" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA10511 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA10499 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:33:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p27.gnt.com [204.49.68.232]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA01901; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:33:10 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:33:07 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCDD75.D88A84C0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2339 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'AntonioCTRocha'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 77 (fwd) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:32:25 -0500 On Monday, October 20, 1997 8:38 AM, AntonioCTRocha [SMTP:arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br] wrote: > > > L. Parker wrote: > > > Kelly, > > > > Unfortunately, it is likely to backfire in his face instead. As the > > update > > intimated, it would be just too bad if everyone BUT the U.S. military > > had > > cheap, quick access to space. Let's see, some two bit backwater country > > highjacks a British Airways orbital cargo flight after sneaking a small > > (10 > > megatons or so) nuclear device aboard. After threatening Washington D.C. > > > > with total annihilation if we don't pay them 100 billion or so we have > > to > > "ask" for help from the British SAS since we declined to invest the > > money > > to build our own military surface to orbit strike capability. Gee, how > > embarrassing... > > > > Lee Parker > > Don't worry. There's still the Aurora. Or isn't there? > > A C Rocha Aurora is neither quick turnaround nor cheap. Besides, I don't think it has any strike capability. The Black Horse concept for the USAF envisioned a modular component system that could carry everything from sensors to weapons, and with a turnaround time of only a few hours at almost any Air Force Base, it could be re-equipped for different missions within a very short time. Possible Scenario: Human intelligence resources report possibility of a third world country launching a nuclear weapon on an ICBM that was obtained surplus from China. Source provides approximate location of launch site, but no more. A Black Horse TAV flies out of Homestead equipped with a sensor package while a strike package is delivered to a Royal Australian Air Force Base near Sydney. The TAV overflight pinpoints the location of the warhead and downlinks the data real time to a base in Germany where the missile itself is identified and pinpointed. The TAV lands in Australia, is refueled and the sensor package is replaced with an MIRV smart bomb that has already been programmed with the coordinates of each of the components. Within hours the MIRVs are released over the target with three RV's assigned to each target. A day or so later a standard reconnaissance satellite overflight confirms total annihilation of both targets. Incidentally, the Black Horse TAV design is one of the entrants in the X-prize contest... Lee Parker From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Oct 20 14:46 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["434" "Mon" "20" "October" "1997" "14:46:53" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "11" "starship-design: a little more administrivia" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA18701 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:46:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA18690; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:46:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710202146.OAA18690@darkwing.uoregon.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.15p7 XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 433 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: a little more administrivia Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:46:53 -0700 (PDT) I've updated the starship-design archives at ftp://ftp.efn.org/pub/users/stevev/starship-design/ with postings from July, August, and September of 1997. I'm hoping in the future that I can get around to updating the archives at the beginning of each month with the postings from the previous month. In case I don't, and you have a burning need to look over archived postings, let me know and I'll try to take care of the update. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Oct 22 21:14 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1155" "Thu" "23" "October" "1997" "00:13:43" "-0400" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "40" "Re: RE: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 77 (fwd)" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 77" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA28064 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 21:14:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA28050 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 21:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id AAA14052; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:13:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971023001339_914482437@emout07.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1154 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, KellySt@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 77 (fwd) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:13:43 -0400 (EDT) In a message dated 10/19/97 5:28:37 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >On Sunday, October 19, 1997 11:24 AM, KellySt@aol.com >[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: >> >> >stories this issue: >> > >> > - Air Force "Spaceplane" Startup Funding Line-Item Vetoed >> >> >> AAAAAHHHHH!! >> >> Just what we need, a DOD exec who wants to keep space access expensive >> and >> rare for reasons of national security! >> >> Kelly > >Kelly, > >Unfortunately, it is likely to backfire in his face instead. As the update >intimated, it would be just too bad if everyone BUT the U.S. military had >cheap, quick access to space. Let's see, some two bit backwater country >highjacks a British Airways orbital cargo flight after sneaking a small (10 >megatons or so) nuclear device aboard. After threatening Washington D.C. >with total annihilation if we don't pay them 100 billion or so we have to >"ask" for help from the British SAS since we declined to invest the money >to build our own military surface to orbit strike capability. Gee, how >embarrassing... > > >Lee Parker More likely the funding will be restored after he's shoved out of the way, again. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Oct 25 11:32 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1248" "Sat" "25" "October" "1997" "13:10:33" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "38" "starship-design: FW: SpaceDev / NEAP alert" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA16663 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 11:32:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA16642 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 11:32:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p33.gnt.com [204.49.68.238]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA18685 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:32:35 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:32:33 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCE14A.734EB9E0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1247 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: FW: SpaceDev / NEAP alert Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:10:33 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: Jim Benson [SMTP:Jim@SpaceDev.Com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 5:23 PM To: Space@SpaceDev.Com Subject: SpaceDev / NEAP alert Greetings, I thought you might be interested to know that the world's first commercial space exploration company has gone public. Our trading symbol is PSDM on the Over The Counter market (OTCBB:PSDM). Our news release can be found at: http://spacedev.com/SpaceDev/Press.html Our first mission is the Near Earth Asteroid Prospector (NEAP). I hope you will take an interest in us, and support our efforts to open space for all of humanity, by giving everyone an opportunity to participate. Sincerely, Jim Benson Chairman P.S. Please forgive me if you received more than one announcement. Many people have expressed different types of interest in SpaceDev and/or NEAP, and we have tried to keep our various lists under control :) SpaceDev - NEAP (Near Earth Asteroid Prospector) -o- Commercial Space Exploration & Development of Space Resources -o- http://www.spacedev.com -o- Info@SpaceDev.Com To subscribe to the "Friends of NEAP" email progress report list, email: Admin@SpaceDev.Com and for the body of the email: subscribe neapfriends From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Oct 25 11:32 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2158" "Sat" "25" "October" "1997" "13:31:38" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "49" "starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" nil nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA16673 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 11:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA16659 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 11:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p33.gnt.com [204.49.68.238]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA18693 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:32:40 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:32:37 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCE14A.75A04B00.lparker@cacaphony.net> From: "L. Parker" To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:31:38 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2157 I just read a book yesterday that many of you might find interesting. It is a work of science fiction written by a scientist (Charles Pellegrino) called "The Killing Star". It covers several philosophical matters that we have recently discussed in this group and he and his co-author George Zebrowski do a much better job of elucidating the arguments than we did. It includes a lot of REAL quotes from several think tank sessions by various physicists, researchers, and authors including Isaac Asimov. Here is one especially relevant section from pages 114-115: "...all that we knew boiled down to three simple laws of alien behavior: 1) THEIR SURVIVAL WILL BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR SURVIVAL. If an alien species has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us. I t is hard to imagine a contrary case; species don't survive by being self sacrificing. 2) WIMPS DON'T BECOME TOP DOGS. No species makes it to the top by being passive. The species in charge of any given planet will be highly intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary. 3) THEY WILL ASSUME THAT THE FIRST TWO LAWS APPLY TO US." They came to pretty much the same conclusion as I did regarding the proximity of other intelligent species, there are no intelligent space faring species currently within our detection range, but they did inject a new idea. We automatically ASSUME because of our own built in prejudices that an intelligent, tool using, space faring species must come from a terrestrial type planet in a liquid water zone. They point out that it is quite feasible for them to come from an aquatic planet which may be OUTSIDE the liquid water zone as we currently define it. A large moon orbiting an outer jovian planet for instance. And these planets probably outnumber the terrestrial planets two or three to one.... Pick up a copy if you have the chance. (o o) ------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo----- ---- Up the airy mountain, Down the rushy glen, We daren't go a-hunting For fear of little men; William Allingham, Ireland, 1850 From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Oct 25 11:32 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["327" "Sat" "25" "October" "1997" "13:08:24" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "18" "RE: RE: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 77 (fwd)" nil nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA16652 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 11:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA16624 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 11:32:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p33.gnt.com [204.49.68.238]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA18678; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:32:31 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:32:30 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCE14A.71140C20.lparker@cacaphony.net> From: "L. Parker" To: "'KellySt@aol.com'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 77 (fwd) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:08:24 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 326 On Wednesday, October 22, 1997 11:14 PM, KellySt@aol.com [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: > > > More likely the funding will be restored after he's shoved out of the way, > > again. > > Kelly Unfortunately, the fluctuating funding ends up costing more money in the long run and the run tends to get longer as well.... Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Oct 25 13:09 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["485" "Sat" "25" "October" "1997" "14:24:00" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "18" "starship-design: Our Sturdy Craft" nil nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA20825 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA20794 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:08:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p12.gnt.com [204.49.68.217]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA25126 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 15:08:57 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 15:08:53 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCE157.E8149A80.lparker@cacaphony.net> From: "L. Parker" To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Our Sturdy Craft Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 14:24:00 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BCE157.E84E9640" Content-Length: 484 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCE157.E84E9640 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/craft.html ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCE157.E84E9640 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name=" Our Sturdy Craft.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 W0ludGVybmV0U2hvcnRjdXRdDQpVUkw9aHR0cDovL3d3dy5mb3VybWlsYWIuY2gvY3NoaXAvY3Jh ZnQuaHRtbA0KTW9kaWZpZWQ9QTA4RjZGNjg3QkUxQkMwMTFGDQo= ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCE157.E84E9640-- From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Oct 25 13:09 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["256" "Sat" "25" "October" "1997" "15:08:22" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "10" "starship-design: Technologies that NASA is researching for CURRENT missions" nil nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA20875 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:09:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA20837 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p12.gnt.com [204.49.68.217]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA25138 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 15:09:01 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 15:08:59 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCE157.EBA51440.lparker@cacaphony.net> From: "L. Parker" To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Technologies that NASA is researching for CURRENT missions Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 15:08:22 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Length: 255 This site presents a compendium of technologies that NASA views as essential to current mission requirements (the next 20 years). It makes fairly interesting reading actually... http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/TU/sbir/97Solictation%20Topics.htm Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Oct 25 15:18 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2954" "Sat" "25" "October" "1997" "17:17:43" "-0700" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "67" "Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" nil nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA06052 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 15:18:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA06046 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 15:18:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dcp2-72.gpt.infi.net (dcp2-72.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.72]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA01997 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 18:18:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <34528C26.3768@sunherald.infi.net> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 17:17:43 -0700 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Organization: APETT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there References: <01BCE14A.75A04B00.lparker@cacaphony.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Length: 2953 L. Parker wrote: > > I just read a book yesterday that many of you might find interesting. It is > a work of science fiction written by a scientist (Charles Pellegrino) > called "The Killing Star". > > It covers several philosophical matters that we have recently discussed in > this group and he and his co-author George Zebrowski do a much better job > of elucidating the arguments than we did. It includes a lot of REAL quotes > from several think tank sessions by various physicists, researchers, and > authors including Isaac Asimov. > > Here is one especially relevant section from pages 114-115: > > "...all that we knew boiled down to three simple laws of alien behavior: > > 1) THEIR SURVIVAL WILL BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR SURVIVAL. If an alien > species has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us. I t is > hard to imagine a contrary case; species don't survive by being self > sacrificing. True. > > 2) WIMPS DON'T BECOME TOP DOGS. No species makes it to the top by being > passive. The species in charge of any given planet will be highly > intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary. No species makes it to the top by being overly aggresive. Nuclear war or such would wipe them out quickly. Other, more 'sentient' civilizations might be considerably more peaceful. If you are that advanced, war becomes unnecessary. You simply come to someone else's system and say "obey". But they could also colonize uninhabited systems with non-"earth?" like planets, which would expand their 'empire'. If they are that advanced, why would they want to crush other peoples when they could become greater by learning knowledge from other civilizations? > > 3) THEY WILL ASSUME THAT THE FIRST TWO LAWS APPLY TO US." > > They came to pretty much the same conclusion as I did regarding the > proximity of other intelligent species, there are no intelligent space > faring species currently within our detection range, Unproven. There may be no MID-level civilizations here. Tribal civilizations have no radio noise. Mid-civs like us emit everything. High-tech civs might not use radio for much communication. And if they weren't aiming at us, we might not hear them anyways. Besides, do you really think if they'd been detected we'd hear about it? Probably not. > but they did inject a > new idea. We automatically ASSUME because of our own built in prejudices > that an intelligent, tool using, space faring species must come from a > terrestrial type planet in a liquid water zone. They point out that it is > quite feasible for them to come from an aquatic planet which may be OUTSIDE > the liquid water zone as we currently define it. A large moon orbiting an > outer jovian planet for instance. And these planets probably outnumber the > terrestrial planets two or three to one.... They might not even need water. > > Pick up a copy if you have the chance. I will. Sounds interesting. Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Oct 25 16:56 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1879" "Sat" "25" "October" "1997" "18:54:51" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "43" "RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" nil nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA10302 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 16:56:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA10287 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 16:55:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p2.gnt.com [204.49.68.207]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA07960; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 18:55:47 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 18:55:42 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCE177.982A5440.lparker@cacaphony.net> From: "L. Parker" To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 18:54:51 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1878 On Saturday, October 25, 1997 6:16 PM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > > The whole bit with Pellegrino's cute little theory in "The Killing Star" > should be an FAQ. It's been hashed out to death many times on USENET, > especially rec.arts.sf.science in relation to the Fermi paradox. > Sorry, I don't follow rec.arts.sf.science so I was unaware that this was such a popular topic of conversation. I only recently started thinking about it because of a posting to this list. I am familiar with the Fermi Paradox but see no real reason why it is relevant, space is vast after all, why SHOULD there be intelligent life within 1,000 light years of Earth? > > This first law is the most misleading, because while it's obviously > true, it also probably isn't relevant. > > It's hard to imagine a plausible situation where species A can entirely > wipe out species B (without wiping out itself) AND species B can > entirely wipe out species A (without wiping out itself). > > In fact, if both species A and species B have interstellar space travel > capability, it's hard to imagine a plausible situation where either > species can entirely wipe out the other with certainty! > > Therefore, it isn't plausible that a species ever "has to choose > between them and us". Of course, you are assuming here that both civilization are interstellar, Pellegrino made no such assumptions. We quite definitely were "not" interstellar. It was the interstellar equivalent of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. They attacked BEFORE we had the capability to strike back. I think my point is that our assumptions that aliens are inherently peaceful or aggressive based upon human reactions to the same situation are flawed. the "laws" Pellegrino presents may not be either true or relevant, but they are logical based upon what we can PROVE, not upon assumptions. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Oct 25 19:38 PDT 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5266" "Sat" "25" "October" "1997" "21:38:03" "-0500" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "116" "Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" nil nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA26275 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 19:38:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA26266 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 19:37:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA07037; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 21:38:03 -0500 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Message-Id: <9710260238.AA07037@bit.csc.lsu.edu> Subject: Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 21:38:03 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <01BCE177.982A5440.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Oct 25, 97 06:54:51 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 5265 L. Parker wrote: >On Saturday, October 25, 1997 6:16 PM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] >wrote: >> The whole bit with Pellegrino's cute little theory in "The Killing Star" >> should be an FAQ. It's been hashed out to death many times on USENET, >> especially rec.arts.sf.science in relation to the Fermi paradox. >Sorry, I don't follow rec.arts.sf.science so I was unaware that this was >such a popular topic of conversation. I only recently started thinking >about it because of a posting to this list. Anyway, you can use "DejaNews" to check out previous discussions on this. >I am familiar with the Fermi Paradox but see no real reason why it is >relevant, space is vast after all, why SHOULD there be intelligent life >within 1,000 light years of Earth? Apparently you're not familiar with the Fermi Paradox. The paradox is that even being extremely conservative about the likelyhood of evolving intelligent life and being extremely conservative about the speed of interstellar colonization, intelligent life should _already_ have colonized the entire galaxy (including our Solar System). So the question, is, "Where are they?" The relevance of the Fermi Paradox to Pellegrino's theory is that it's offered as a possible solution to the question--the answer is that they're there, but they're paranoid about letting their presense being known and are on their way to exterminate us. The problem with this answer to Fermi's Paradox is that this isn't really a sensible answer at all. If these aliens knew what they were doing, they'd have already wiped us out ages ago. After all, they should _already_ have a presense in this solar system. >> This first law is the most misleading, because while it's obviously >> true, it also probably isn't relevant. >> It's hard to imagine a plausible situation where species A can entirely >> wipe out species B (without wiping out itself) AND species B can >> entirely wipe out species A (without wiping out itself). >> In fact, if both species A and species B have interstellar space travel >> capability, it's hard to imagine a plausible situation where either >> species can entirely wipe out the other with certainty! >> Therefore, it isn't plausible that a species ever "has to choose >> between them and us". >Of course, you are assuming here that both civilization are interstellar, No I am not. Reread very carefully. >Pellegrino made no such assumptions. We quite definitely were "not" >interstellar. It was the interstellar equivalent of a pre-emptive nuclear >strike. They attacked BEFORE we had the capability to strike back. But you see, it doesn't make sense. Yes, the aliens have the ability to wipe us out. However, we do _not_ have the ability to wipe out the aliens. Therefore, they do not have to choose between them and us. Anyway, for an alien race to wait until we had developed the ability to speak in 3 word sentences, much less build Sony Walkmans and interplanetary rockets, they aren't doing their genocidal job very well. >I think my point is that our assumptions that aliens are inherently >peaceful or aggressive based upon human reactions to the same situation are >flawed. the "laws" Pellegrino presents may not be either true or relevant, >but they are logical based upon what we can PROVE, not upon assumptions. Well, the first law is true, but it's easy to think it says more than it does. The other two laws actually are debateable, but I prefer to take things one step at a time. You can't really conclude much from the second two alone. As an aside, one of the most intriguing examples of being blinded by one's own experiences in science fiction, I've found, was in the Doctor Who story, "Genesis of the Daleks" (Doctor Who was a long running science fiction/fantasy TV series not noted for intellectual stimulation). The creator of the Daleks, Davros, was born and lived at the grinding end of a thousand year long war of attrition between the Thals and the Kaleds. Since this is all he ever knew, he assumed that peaceful coexistence of more than one race was inherently impossible, and that the only possible sort of existence was that of a master race above slave subject races. Upon the discovery that there indeed existed life outside of his home planet of Scaro, he gave his Daleks the simple directive to become ultimate rulers of the universe. As far as science fiction villians go, the Daleks are pretty trite, but the story of their creator and his thinking is surprisingly thought-provoking. (Originally, the Daleks were simply bad guys who were ugly creatures jealous of the beauty of the Thals. Then they completely rewrote the story of their origin with "Genesis of the Daleks".) I point out this example because we're all to some degree or another blinded to possibilities outside our own experience. I think Pellegrino's second law is an example of this--and not that far removed from Davros's problem. The second law refers to "top dogs" not being "wimps". It's actually not even clear what "top dog" exactly means. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Oct 26 11:24 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["808" "Sun" "26" "October" "1997" "13:23:13" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "23" "starship-design: Web page research" nil nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA25539 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 11:23:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA25525 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 11:23:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p24.gnt.com [204.49.68.229]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA03449 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 13:23:40 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 13:23:37 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCE212.5E41F1C0.lparker@cacaphony.net> From: "L. Parker" To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Web page research Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 13:23:13 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 807 I am beginning the process of writing a web page describing the timeline for building a starship within 50 years. It will include things like what technologies need to be developed and when they must be developed by, what kind of infrastructure must be in place, etc. This is not simply just technology questions, anything relevant to the mission is of interest. I would appreciate any thoughts or comments anyone in the group would like to make. I will mail a rough draft to the group after incorporating your suggestions. Lee (o o) ------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo----- ---- Up the airy mountain, Down the rushy glen, We daren't go a-hunting For fear of little men; William Allingham, Ireland, 1850 From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Oct 26 15:17 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6843" "Sun" "26" "October" "1997" "17:08:01" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "141" "RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA02975 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:17:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA02958 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:17:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p47.gnt.com [204.49.68.252]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA20754; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 17:17:07 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 17:17:03 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCE232.FA52BDE0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 6842 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 17:08:01 -0600 On Saturday, October 25, 1997 9:38 PM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > > >I am familiar with the Fermi Paradox but see no real reason why it is > >relevant, space is vast after all, why SHOULD there be intelligent life > >within 1,000 light years of Earth? > > Apparently you're not familiar with the Fermi Paradox. The paradox > is that even being extremely conservative about the likelihood of > evolving intelligent life and being extremely conservative about > the speed of interstellar colonization, intelligent life should > _already_ have colonized the entire galaxy (including our Solar > System). > > So the question, is, "Where are they?" Actually, the Fermi Paradox makes several unjustifiable assumptions to arrive at the conclusion that the universe _must_ be teeming with life and _intelligent_ life to boot. This was one of Carl Sagan's favorite topics, and yes I'm sure it was picked apart heavily on various newsgroups. However, there are literally thousands of reasons why said intelligent life would never be visible to us and probably millions more which haven't even occurred to us yet. Case in point, answer the following question, be precise and be prepared to justify your answer: How many intelligent species are there on Earth? > > The relevance of the Fermi Paradox to Pellegrino's theory is that it's > offered as a possible solution to the question--the answer is that > they're there, but they're paranoid about letting their presense being > known and are on their way to exterminate us. True enough, but he also unjustifiably assumes that most races figure out his laws BEFORE being found and exterminated. I find that as equally unlikely as the existence of said intelligent species anywhere near us in the first place. At the risk of anthropomorphizing, I fail to see how ANY species would arrive at such a conclusion prior to emitting at least some betraying EM signature. Which leaves the alternative - they are exterminated before emitting such a signature. Since we haven't yet been eliminated ourselves, I find that unlikely as well. All in all, I think that the MOST likely explanation is that for whatever reason, we are alone in our little pocket of the galaxy. I would however like to start another thread if someone would care to pick it up. The scope of project SETI is/was rather limited. It searched for radio waves which although a good indicator of civilization at our level of technology, is not necessarily what we should be looking out for. What type of emissions would an ADVANCED civilization emit? How about neutrinos? Gravitons? Not only are these types of emissions almost a necessity for a spaceborne civilization, they are practically impossible to hide... > > The problem with this answer to Fermi's Paradox is that this isn't > really a sensible answer at all. If these aliens knew what they > were doing, they'd have already wiped us out ages ago. After all, > they should _already_ have a presense in this solar system. > If they do, I'm not worried, we're still here. > > > But you see, it doesn't make sense. Yes, the aliens have the ability > to wipe us out. However, we do _not_ have the ability to wipe out > the aliens. Therefore, they do not have to choose between them and > us. That is what a pre-emptive strike is all about, wipe them out BEFORE they have the ability (much less the inclination) to wipe you out. > > Anyway, for an alien race to wait until we had developed the ability > to speak in 3 word sentences, much less build Sony Walkmans and > interplanetary rockets, they aren't doing their genocidal job very > well. Granted, but this still assumes that they are practically next door. There is no evidence of anything within fifteen or twenty light years, which cover a lot of stars. The only other possible explanation is again back to being so advanced that we can't even see them which loops back to we are still here and they _must_ know about us, so I'm not worried. > > > The other two laws actually are debatable, but I prefer to take things > one step at a time. You can't really conclude much from the second two > alone. > I agree that the other two laws are debatable, I certainly don't believe that either of them really apply to us. Pellegrino's point was however that they were LOGICAL, in which he is correct. Reality however does not always follow logic. > > As an aside, one of the most intriguing examples of being blinded by > one's own experiences in science fiction, I've found, was in the > Doctor Who story, "Genesis of the Daleks" (Doctor Who was a long > running science fiction/fantasy TV series not noted for intellectual > stimulation). The creator of the Daleks, Davros, was born and lived > at the grinding end of a thousand year long war of attrition between > the Thals and the Kaleds. Since this is all he ever knew, he assumed > that peaceful coexistence of more than one race was inherently > impossible, and that the only possible sort of existence was that > of a master race above slave subject races. Upon the discovery that > there indeed existed life outside of his home planet of Scaro, he > gave his Daleks the simple directive to become ultimate rulers of > the universe. > > As far as science fiction villians go, the Daleks are pretty trite, > but the story of their creator and his thinking is surprisingly > thought-provoking. (Originally, the Daleks were simply bad guys > who were ugly creatures jealous of the beauty of the Thals. Then > they completely rewrote the story of their origin with "Genesis of > the Daleks".) He stole the plot from H. G. Wells... > > I point out this example because we're all to some degree or another > blinded to possibilities outside our own experience. I think > Pellegrino's second law is an example of this--and not that far > removed from Davros's problem. The second law refers to "top dogs" > not being "wimps". It's actually not even clear what "top dog" > exactly means. Umm, were you aware that our beloved dolphins who are supposedly so intelligent and pacifistic are in reality aggressive and warlike? They exhibit tribal behavior and have been known to kill other dolphin species apparently for sport? Conceding that they are still mammals and not all that different from us compared to extraterrestrial type aliens, I still can't help but think that the laws of evolution as we currently understand them are pretty much going to apply no matter what species we are talking about. Competition for survival is probably a universal constant and the end result is predictable. I'm not advocating that we "hunker down" and try to hide our emissions. Just that it would be better if we didn't automatically assume that intelligent civilizations were automatically pacifistic. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Oct 26 15:17 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["867" "Sun" "26" "October" "1997" "17:16:08" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "21" "RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA02979 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:17:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA02960 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:17:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p47.gnt.com [204.49.68.252]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA20781; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 17:17:18 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 17:17:18 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCE233.033A67A0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 866 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'stk@sunherald.infi.net'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 17:16:08 -0600 On Saturday, October 25, 1997 11:21 PM, Kyle R. Mcallister [SMTP:stk@sunherald.infi.net] wrote: > Addenum to my response: > > There are probably many 'types'of civilizations out there, with many > different motives. The passive ones get left behind, the aggressive ones > blow themselves back a few hundred years every now and then, the stupid > ones do nothing, the smart ones try to learn and not kill for no reason, > but take no crap from other civilizations, etc... > > Perhaps another subject title for a thread on this could be "Its a mad, > mad, mad, mad world" :) Well, you have a point. Over aggressiveness certainly isn't a selection factor for species survival, they would have eaten themselves out of existence prior to getting smart enough to take control of their environment...at least I hope so, the alternative doesn't bear thinking on. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Oct 26 15:30 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["541" "Sun" "26" "October" "1997" "17:30:05" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "18" "starship-design: Timeline " "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Timeline" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA07606 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:30:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA07582 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:30:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p47.gnt.com [204.49.68.252]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA21718 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 17:30:38 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 17:30:35 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCE234.DE5ACA40.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 540 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Timeline Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 17:30:05 -0600 I am planning on writing this page as if it were a paper presented to a conference by a member of the staff at LIT (me of course). Would it be better to present it in 1997 or should I present it in 2046 and use an introduction format to summarize 1997 to 2046? Lee (o o) ------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo----- ---- Up the airy mountain, Down the rushy glen, We daren't go a-hunting For fear of little men; William Allingham, Ireland, 1850 From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Oct 26 20:12 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["10257" "Sun" "26" "October" "1997" "22:10:54" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "239" "RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA25237 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 20:12:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA25196 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 20:11:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p26.gnt.com [204.49.68.231]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA11001; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 22:11:38 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 22:11:34 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCE25C.1EDE8760.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 10256 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 22:10:54 -0600 On Sunday, October 26, 1997 7:03 PM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > L. Parker wrote: > >On Saturday, October 25, 1997 9:38 PM, Isaac Kuo > >[SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] > >wrote: > > > Actually, the conclusion of the Fermi Paradox is that the universe > should, with almost certain probability, already be colonized by > one or more intelligent species. No, it doesn't PROVE any such thing. It starts from a set of assumptions, adds more assumptions to them, then multiplies by still more assumptions....IF you accept the factors that are given in the paradox then you can arrive at such a conclusion. However, observed reality does not match theory, so I would submit that the theory (Fermi's Paradox) is wrong. The most likely source of error is in the factors that are used to arrive at the conclusion, the logic is actually pretty good. > > First you roughly calculate how often an interstellar capable > technological civilization should evolve. Be very very conservative > in your estimates--assume an Earth-like planet is needed, for carbon > based life including a roughly human-like intelligent species. Then > you calculate how long it should take for such a civilization to > completely colonize the entire galaxy--be very conservative here, > assuming, for instance, a .1%c asymptotic rate of expansion. Then > you look at how old the Milky Way galaxy is. f(hab) - fraction of star's with habitable planets f(sun) - fraction of sun-like stars f(I) - fraction of Population I stars (i.e. have heavy elements) f(p) - fraction of Population I stars with planets f(ec) - fraction of planets that orbit within the 'ecological' zone f(ter) - fraction of f(ec) planets that are Earth like or terrestrial f(ax) - fraction of planets with viable axial tilt f(rot) - fraction of planets with viable rotation rates f(hab) = f(sun)f(I)f(p)f(ec)f(ter)f(ax)f(rot) which can also be extended by: f(life) - fraction of planets developing life f(int) - fraction of life developing intelligence f(tech) - fraction of intelligence developing tool use f(civ) - fraction of tool users to develop advanced civilizations f(civ) = f(hap)f(life)f(int)f(tech) which derives a value of 0.001 for f(civ). This equates to 200 million advanced civilizations in our galaxy, assuming they all reached this point at the same time. In other words we are the only intelligent life in the closest 1,000 star systems.... > > The three factors conspiring here are the sheer number of stars in > the Milky Way, the great age of the Milky Way, and the relatively > small size of the Milky Way compared to its age. The conclusion > is that the probability should be nearly 100% that an interstellar > capable technological civilazation should have already been colonized > the entire Milky Way (every star, every nebula, every planet, and > every moon--everything). Granted, even assuming the above numbers, which are based on Fermi's assumptions are correct, we should still have been colonized by now. > Name one reason why an interstellar capable intelligent civilization > which has colonized Earth, controlling and using its resources, would > never be visible to us (other than the fact that we probably shouldn't > have evolved in the first place). It would be foolish to assume that all civilizations survive their childhood and reach a stage where they are capable of colonizing the galaxy. In addition to childhood diseases there are threats to mature civilizations as well and those that can occur to any civilization, young or old. A partial litany of these threats are: Pollution War Over Population Resource Crunch Bio/Nano Disaster Inward Turning Cosmic Disasters Delicate Balance Disruption Boredom Degeneration Unknown (Physics) > > >Case in point, answer the following question, be > >precise and be prepared to justify your answer: > > >How many intelligent species are there on Earth? > > Who cares? Since you don't seem interested in what constitutes an intelligent species it is probably pointless to consider why they might not become spacefaring. I'll continue that particular argument with someone else. > > Don't be confused into thinking the Fermi paradox necessarily has > anything to do with searching for life in other star systems. We > already know searching beyond our own solar system is rather difficult > and we haven't made a seriously thorough attempt yet. > > >What type of emissions would an ADVANCED civilization emit? How about > >neutrinos? Gravitons? Not only are these types of emissions almost a > >necessity for a spaceborne civilization, they are practically impossible > >to > >hide... > > Neutrinos and gravitons? Why? We don't emit any. None of the > interstellar drives we've discussed on this list would emit any > (other than Alcubierre's, which requires more energy than exists > in the universe to run anyway). Not true, we do emit neutrinos, not in significant numbers yet, but it will increase. > > >> But you see, it doesn't make sense. Yes, the aliens have the ability > >> to wipe us out. However, we do _not_ have the ability to wipe out > >> the aliens. Therefore, they do not have to choose between them and > >> us. > > >That is what a pre-emptive strike is all about, wipe them out BEFORE they > > > >have the ability (much less the inclination) to wipe you out. > > Actually, not necessarily--if you look at what "pre-emptive strike" > had always refered to during the height of the Cold War, both sides > already had the ability to wipe out the other side. A pre-emptive > strike was supposed to eliminate the other side's ability to do > so (by heavily attacking the other side's missile silos and airbases, > rather than civilian targets). Having eliminated the enemy's ability > to retaliate, the side which fired the pre-emptive strike could demand > unconditional surrender without slaughtering the other side's civilian > targets. This is what made the pre-emptive strike so scary--it looked > like an attractive option even if the leader doing it was not a > genocidally bloodthirsty maniac--and neither side could afford to let > the other do it first. Also not true. Isaac, you weren't even alive during the Cold War and obviously slept through history. Several of our Generals were pressing for exactly that at the end of World War II. They were already afraid of Russia and wanted to end it right then, while we still could. We could have too. We did have the weapons and Russia did not. > > That's just an aside. I know the "pre-emptive strike" you refer to > is fundamentally different. > > The kind of "pre-emptive strike" you refer to is really something > different. It makes the assumption that eliminating an interstellar > capable species with billions of years more advanced technology is > even plausible. Now you are confused, you got it backwards. It is the species which is MORE advanced which goes aropund eliminating the less advanced one, you said so yourself just a few paragraphs ago... > > >> Anyway, for an alien race to wait until we had developed the ability > >> to speak in 3 word sentences, much less build Sony Walkmans and > >> interplanetary rockets, they aren't doing their genocidal job very > >> well. > > >Granted, but this still assumes that they are practically next door. > > No, this assumes they are here. They have been here. They were > here to witness the formation of the planets. Then there is nothing to worry about, we are still here also, so they obviously don't plan on exterminating us. At least not just yet anyway... > > Umm, what do dolphins have to do with anything we're talking about? Everything. > > Besides, I doubt anyone who knew what he was talking about ever used > the term "pacifistic" to describe dolphins. They're carnivores which > hunt to live. They're quite openly aggressive. And at the top of the ladder in their environment... > > Back to the topic, what does "top dog" mean, anyway? Does it mean > the richest person in the world (which would mean Bill Gates, but > none of the rest of us)? Does it mean any species which has no > natural predators (which would include Panda Bears)? Umm, good example. Vegetarian, pacifistic, non-aggressive, nearly extinct... > > Competition for resources is a constant theme on Earth, but the end > result is many different things. > > Interspecies interaction between predators and prey are often quite > complex--no predator can afford to completely eliminate their prey. Nor will it ignore competition from other predators. > > Within a species, direct competition is nearly inevitable--but there's > a wide range of possibilities, including simple competition by > outreproducing and stylized enforcement of territory borders. These are individual survival behavior patterns, not species. You misread your Darwin. > > In the context of what in the world "top dog" means, both might be > relevant, depending upon what "top dog" means. Pelligrino implicitely > assumes that the "top dog" must be an entire species. Therefore, > interspecies interaction is what's relevant. He tacitly implies > that on Earth, homo sapiens is the "top dog". And yet we go out > of our way to avoid exterminating species like Spotted Owls, which > we are no more dependent upon than Dodo Birds or Passenger Pigeons. Which were the arguments the unfortunate captives tried to advance, that we weren't really like that, that Rules 2 and 3 didn't apply. Pellegrino's point was simply that the other species can't (and won't) take the chance. > > Nobody except for Carl Sagan made such an assumption. It's the > ultimate in optimism considering humans aren't pacifistic. > Actually, to be fair to Carl Sagan, he only made the assumption > that a civilization which managed to not destroy itself in > nuclear war long enough to colonize other star systems would be > pacifistic. It is conceivable that humananity will "outgrow" war > and/or destroy itself before colonizing other star systems, in > which case we won't be a counterexample to Sagan's assumption. Well, it has been fun Isaac, but its back to work tomorrow. BTW, the working draft of the timeline is up, it is at: http://www.gnt.net/~lparker/next.htm Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Oct 27 07:28 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3185" "Mon" "27" "October" "1997" "10:24:34" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "64" "RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA27882 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 07:28:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA27875 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 07:28:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 10:24:34 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 3184 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" , "'L. Parker'" Subject: RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 10:24:34 -0500 I think you may be confusing the Drake Equation with the Fermi Paradox. Before I start, here are two references: What is the Drake equation? http://www.landfield.com/faqs/astronomy/faq/part6/section-10.html What is the Fermi paradox? http://www.landfield.com/faqs/astronomy/faq/part6/section-11.html The Drake Equation is the one you mention, which "starts from a set of assumptions, adds more assumptions to them, then multiplies by still more assumptions." The Fermi Paradox, on the other hand, is not an equation. Fermi, in fact, started with the Drake Equation, however - before Drake himself came up with it! But from there he added the idea of colonization. Fermi asked how long it would take for a star-faring civilization to colonize star after star. How long, he wondered, before they would get here? The answer surprised him - even taking vastly conservative estimates for the speed of expansion of an interstellar civilization (i.e. fraction of a percent of the speed of light) and assuming a long "waiting time" at each star - you get an expanding bubble of civilization that colonizes the ENTIRE galaxy in a few million years. The assumptions in the Fermi Paradox are very very basic: 1. One civilization arises with the will to colonize. That's it, the only assumption. As long as you assume that one such civilization arose SOMEWHERE in the galaxy before us, we have quite a quandry: considering the age of the galaxy, why aren't they here? It doesn't matter if we use Drake's Equation and come up numbers that say that the nearest civilization is a thousand light years away. Because if only one civilization before us had the will to colonize, they would have been here already. We could, of course, be first - but if you accept intelligent life as being fairly common (i.e. even just a few hundred civilizations in the galaxy, which is incredibly conservative in some views) this is statistically unlikely. In fact, one of the mistakes that most science fiction (not all, mind you) makes is that any aliens we encounter will be anywhere close to us technologically. Basically, there are millions of years of history behind us, and millions of years of history in front of us. What are the odds that another life form we encounter is even within a thousand years of us on either side? A million? If you want to restrict it to intelligent life forms, really the only direction to go is ahead of us, because there is even a smaller amount of intelligent history behind us. If you're talking about a space-faring life form, we can almost guarantee they will be ahead of us, statistically. There are around fifty years of space-faring history behind us, and millions, if not billions, of years in front of us. The Fermi Paradox worries me a lot. Sometimes I really think the only answer is that we are alone. ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 "The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Oct 27 08:46 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["14418" "Mon" "27" "October" "1997" "10:45:11" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "341" "Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA00640 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 08:46:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (baud.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.27]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA00422 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 08:45:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00509; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 10:45:13 -0600 Message-Id: <9710271645.AA00509@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <01BCE25C.1EDE8760.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Oct 26, 97 10:10:54 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 14417 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 10:45:11 -0600 (CST) I had written a long rebuttal to L. Parker's discussion, but then I found the paper he obviously cribbed off of (F.E. Freiheit's "The Possibilities of FTL: Or Fermi's Paradox Reconsidered). This paper already included rebuttals, albeit succinct ones. Anyway, here's my original rebuttal... L. Parker wrote: >On Sunday, October 26, 1997 7:03 PM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] >wrote: >> L. Parker wrote: >> >On Saturday, October 25, 1997 9:38 PM, Isaac Kuo >> >[SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] >> >wrote: >> Actually, the conclusion of the Fermi Paradox is that the universe >> should, with almost certain probability, already be colonized by >> one or more intelligent species. >No, it doesn't PROVE any such thing. I never said it did. It is simply a mind experiment using probabilities. Obviously, if it PROVED something, then the conclusion must be true. However, _no_ scientific theory ever proves _anything_. It's practically by definition that a scientific theory must be disprovable. A scientific theory makes falsifiable predictions--and thus there is always the possibility of being disproved by a failed prediction. >It starts from a set of assumptions, >adds more assumptions to them, then multiplies by still more >assumptions....IF you accept the factors that are given in the paradox then >you can arrive at such a conclusion. Look. If you think there's a flaw in the reasoning of the Fermi Paradox, point one out. Use DejaNews to search for the gazillion threads on Fermi's Paradox, and you'll see someone else has already thought of that and it's been shot down. Or search Yahoo for more concise FAQs on the topic. (Be forewarned that there is a lot of bogus nonsense on the Web which doesn't include any rebuttal, as in USENET.) >However, observed reality does not >match theory, so I would submit that the theory (Fermi's Paradox) is wrong. But that _is_ Fermi's paradox. The conclusion does not match reality. If it matched reality, then it would be "Fermi's theory". >The most likely source of error is in the factors that are used to arrive >at the conclusion, the logic is actually pretty good. Been thought of. The inherent problem is that any factor which would make technological life so rare (regardless of the factors) should also apply to us. But we evolved in such a young solar system, how could we be so lucky to evolve so quickly? >> First you roughly calculate how often an interstellar capable >> technological civilization should evolve. Be very very conservative >> in your estimates--assume an Earth-like planet is needed, for carbon >> based life including a roughly human-like intelligent species. Then >> you calculate how long it should take for such a civilization to >> completely colonize the entire galaxy--be very conservative here, >> assuming, for instance, a .1%c asymptotic rate of expansion. Then >> you look at how old the Milky Way galaxy is. >f(hab) - fraction of star's with habitable planets >f(sun) - fraction of sun-like stars >f(I) - fraction of Population I stars (i.e. have heavy elements) >f(p) - fraction of Population I stars with planets >f(ec) - fraction of planets that orbit within the 'ecological' zone >f(ter) - fraction of f(ec) planets that are Earth like or terrestrial >f(ax) - fraction of planets with viable axial tilt >f(rot) - fraction of planets with viable rotation rates >f(hab) = f(sun)f(I)f(p)f(ec)f(ter)f(ax)f(rot) >which can also be extended by: >f(life) - fraction of planets developing life >f(int) - fraction of life developing intelligence >f(tech) - fraction of intelligence developing tool use >f(civ) - fraction of tool users to develop advanced civilizations >f(civ) = f(hap)f(life)f(int)f(tech) >which derives a value of 0.001 for f(civ). This equates to 200 million >advanced civilizations in our galaxy, assuming they all reached this point >at the same time. >In other words we are the only intelligent life in the closest 1,000 star >systems.... Congrats on using the Drake equation, but you forgot to factor in the average lifespan of an advanced civilization. And your conclusion is only valid if interstellar colonization is _impossible_. The Drake equation's weakest point, arguably, is the factor of "average lifespan of an advanced civilization". It's pure guesswork, and there's a real question of why such advanced civilizations would inherently die off. And even if the _average_ lifespan of an advanced civilization was rather low (e.g. because of global nuclear war), all it takes is _one_ to be lucky enough to go interstellar, and it should only take them another 100 million years to colonize the entire galaxy (assuming they can only colonize outward at .1% c). >> The three factors conspiring here are the sheer number of stars in >> the Milky Way, the great age of the Milky Way, and the relatively >> small size of the Milky Way compared to its age. The conclusion >> is that the probability should be nearly 100% that an interstellar >> capable technological civilazation should have already been colonized >> the entire Milky Way (every star, every nebula, every planet, and >> every moon--everything). >Granted, even assuming the above numbers, which are based on Fermi's >assumptions are correct, we should still have been colonized by now. >> Name one reason why an interstellar capable intelligent civilization >> which has colonized Earth, controlling and using its resources, would >> never be visible to us (other than the fact that we probably shouldn't >> have evolved in the first place). >It would be foolish to assume that all civilizations survive their >childhood and reach a stage where they are capable of colonizing the >galaxy. In addition to childhood diseases there are threats to mature >civilizations as well and those that can occur to any civilization, young >or old. A partial litany of these threats are: >Pollution >War These two are valid problems, but ones which presumably a significant fraction of civilizations survive indefinitely. We seem to be doing pretty well on this front (after a shakey start)--although it's possible for our foolishness to cause mass death and suffering, it's unlikely that we will completely wipe ourselves out. >Over Population >Resource Crunch Neither of these are plausible ways to go extinct. They are self correcting problems (even though the correction mechanism can be pretty hideous). >Bio/Nano Disaster While there is a certain window of risk when a civilization is bound to a single planet, after interplanetary colonization a civilization is probably safe from this. Given the relatively short time it seems for technological creatures to develop interplanetary colonization, this window of risk should only eliminate a small fraction of candidate alien races. >Inward Turning Huh? >Cosmic Disasters A recent thread on rec.arts.sf.science addressed this possibility in reference to "gamma ray bursters". >Delicate Balance Disruption Huh? Do you mean an environmental disaster? This one should only eliminate a small faction of candidate alien races, too, since it wouldn't eliminate interplanetary colonized races. >Boredom Dying of boredom? Well, anything is POSSIBLE... >Degeneration Huh? >Unknown (Physics) Now here is a serious factor. One possible answer to Fermi's paradox, which also supplies that last factor in the Drake equation, is that there is some sort of really really really lethal "bomb" capable of wiping out even an interstellar colonized civilization (something a hell of a lot nastier than a dinky little supernova). The problem with this is that you'd expect something like that to leave effects which would be trivially easy to detect by modern astronomers. One thing Erik Max Francis noted on rec.arts.sf.science is that we don't understand the nature of "gamma ray bursters". >>>What type of emissions would an ADVANCED civilization emit? How about >>>neutrinos? Gravitons? Not only are these types of emissions almost a >>>necessity for a spaceborne civilization, they are practically impossible >>>to >>>hide... >>Neutrinos and gravitons? Why? We don't emit any. None of the >>interstellar drives we've discussed on this list would emit any >>(other than Alcubierre's, which requires more energy than exists >>in the universe to run anyway). >Not true, we do emit neutrinos, not in significant numbers yet, but it will >increase. Why? >>>>But you see, it doesn't make sense. Yes, the aliens have the ability >>>>to wipe us out. However, we do _not_ have the ability to wipe out >>>>the aliens. Therefore, they do not have to choose between them and >>>>us. >>>That is what a pre-emptive strike is all about, wipe them out BEFORE >>>they have the ability (much less the inclination) to wipe you out. >> Actually, not necessarily--if you look at what "pre-emptive strike" >> had always refered to during the height of the Cold War, both sides >> already had the ability to wipe out the other side. A pre-emptive >> strike was supposed to eliminate the other side's ability to do >> so (by heavily attacking the other side's missile silos and airbases, >> rather than civilian targets). Having eliminated the enemy's ability >> to retaliate, the side which fired the pre-emptive strike could demand >> unconditional surrender without slaughtering the other side's civilian >> targets. This is what made the pre-emptive strike so scary--it looked >> like an attractive option even if the leader doing it was not a >> genocidally bloodthirsty maniac--and neither side could afford to let >> the other do it first. >Also not true. Isaac, you weren't even alive during the Cold War and >obviously slept through history. Several of our Generals were pressing for >exactly that at the end of World War II. That was not at the height of the Cold War. >> That's just an aside. I know the "pre-emptive strike" you refer to >> is fundamentally different. >> The kind of "pre-emptive strike" you refer to is really something >> different. It makes the assumption that eliminating an interstellar >> capable species with billions of years more advanced technology is >> even plausible. >Now you are confused, you got it backwards. It is the species which is MORE >advanced which goes aropund eliminating the less advanced one, you said so >yourself just a few paragraphs ago... Let's call the more advanced species species A. Let's call the less advanced species species B. You are saying that species A wants to eliminate species B before species B can develop the ability to eliminate species A. This implicitely assumes that species B can eventually develop the ability to eliminate species A, even though species A will always have such a head start. >> Umm, what do dolphins have to do with anything we're talking about? >Everything. Why? They are not technological creatures. They will probably never be technological creatures, and probably will never even evolve into technological creatures. >> Besides, I doubt anyone who knew what he was talking about ever used >> the term "pacifistic" to describe dolphins. They're carnivores which >> hunt to live. They're quite openly aggressive. >And at the top of the ladder in their environment... In what sense? In that they don't have any natural predators? You can say the same of most of the larger sharks. Oh wait. Occasionally a large shark will kill a dolphin (or even a human) and eat (at least some of) it. Not the other way around. >> Back to the topic, what does "top dog" mean, anyway? Does it mean >> the richest person in the world (which would mean Bill Gates, but >> none of the rest of us)? Does it mean any species which has no >> natural predators (which would include Panda Bears)? >Umm, good example. Vegetarian, pacifistic, non-aggressive, nearly >extinct... That's my point. It's a silly definition of "top dog" that includes Panda Bears. Obviously not what Pellegrino meant. So what does he mean? >> Competition for resources is a constant theme on Earth, but the end >> result is many different things. >> Interspecies interaction between predators and prey are often quite >> complex--no predator can afford to completely eliminate their prey. >Nor will it ignore competition from other predators. Not necessarily. One of the most successful predators are driver ants. For all practical purposes, they ingore the many birds which compete for the same prey (and happilly snap up critters driven ahead of the driver ant columns). There just isn't anything those driver ants can do about it, even if they had the capability to recognize the raiders. >> Within a species, direct competition is nearly inevitable--but there's >> a wide range of possibilities, including simple competition by >> outreproducing and stylized enforcement of territory borders. >These are individual survival behavior patterns, not species. You misread >your Darwin. I'm talking about intra-species competition in this paragraph. That's what "within a species" means. Therefore, I must discuss behavior patterns of individuals or groups of individuals. Just how do you discuss intra-species competition in terms of species behavior patterns? >> In the context of what in the world "top dog" means, both might be >> relevant, depending upon what "top dog" means. Pelligrino implicitely >> assumes that the "top dog" must be an entire species. Therefore, >> interspecies interaction is what's relevant. He tacitly implies >> that on Earth, homo sapiens is the "top dog". And yet we go out >> of our way to avoid exterminating species like Spotted Owls, which >> we are no more dependent upon than Dodo Birds or Passenger Pigeons. >Which were the arguments the unfortunate captives tried to advance, that we >weren't really like that, that Rules 2 and 3 didn't apply. Pellegrino's >point was simply that the other species can't (and won't) take the chance. Which gets back to the inadequacy of his first law. The implicit implication that the alien species must choose between their survival or ours. Which is nonsense. >BTW, the working draft of the timeline is up, it is at: >http://www.gnt.net/~lparker/next.htm -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Oct 27 15:54 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["521" "Tue" "28" "October" "1997" "00:53:03" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "17" "starship-design: Ancient" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Ancient" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA27103 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 15:54:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA26997 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 15:53:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-016.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0xPyzq-001WdwC; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 00:54:58 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 520 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Ancient Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 00:53:03 +0100 Hello all, I'm trying to get complete newsletter history of Starship Design. Therefore I ask if anyone has old SD newsletters? With old I mean pre-MiniLIT. That is before 10-31-1995. While I have several newsletters before that date, my record has some holes. As far as I know these letters aren't available anymore on the SD site. (There are links to it, but they don't work anymore.) If you do have some old letters, please let me know. I think it's best to mail me directly. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Oct 27 18:10 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["378" "Mon" "27" "October" "1997" "21:09:59" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "19" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 77 (fwd)" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 77" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA19493 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 18:10:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin45.mail.aol.com (mrin45.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.155]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA19460 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 18:10:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin45.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) id VAA09689; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:09:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971027210958_-1695167081@mrin45.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 377 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 77 (fwd) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:09:59 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 10/25/97 12:32:39 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >> More likely the funding will be restored after he's shoved out of the >way, >> >> again. >> >> Kelly > >Unfortunately, the fluctuating funding ends up costing more money in the >long run and the run tends to get longer as well.... > >Lee Of course. Thats the way of all government programs. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Oct 27 18:18 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2044" "Mon" "27" "October" "1997" "21:17:33" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "46" "Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA22608 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 18:18:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from emout32.mail.aol.com (emout32.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA22569 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 18:18:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout32.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id VAA14213; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:17:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971027211209_525672344@emout04.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2043 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:17:33 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 10/25/97 12:32:56 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >I just read a book yesterday that many of you might find interesting. It is >a work of science fiction written by a scientist (Charles Pellegrino) >called "The Killing Star". > >It covers several philosophical matters that we have recently discussed in >this group and he and his co-author George Zebrowski do a much better job >of elucidating the arguments than we did. It includes a lot of REAL quotes >from several think tank sessions by various physicists, researchers, and >authors including Isaac Asimov. > >Here is one especially relevant section from pages 114-115: > >"...all that we knew boiled down to three simple laws of alien behavior: > >1) THEIR SURVIVAL WILL BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR SURVIVAL. If an alien >species has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us. I t is >hard to imagine a contrary case; species don't survive by being self >sacrificing. > >2) WIMPS DON'T BECOME TOP DOGS. No species makes it to the top by being >passive. The species in charge of any given planet will be highly >intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary. > >3) THEY WILL ASSUME THAT THE FIRST TWO LAWS APPLY TO US." > >They came to pretty much the same conclusion as I did regarding the >proximity of other intelligent species, there are no intelligent space >faring species currently within our detection range, but they did inject a >new idea. We automatically ASSUME because of our own built in prejudices >that an intelligent, tool using, space faring species must come from a >terrestrial type planet in a liquid water zone. They point out that it is >quite feasible for them to come from an aquatic planet which may be OUTSIDE >the liquid water zone as we currently define it. A large moon orbiting an >outer jovian planet for instance. And these planets probably outnumber the >terrestrial planets two or three to one.... > >Pick up a copy if you have the chance. Sounds good, I'll have to look for it. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Oct 27 18:20 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3544" "Mon" "27" "October" "1997" "21:20:24" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "87" "Re: Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA24617 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 18:20:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin40.mail.aol.com (mrin40.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.150]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA24570 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 18:20:53 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin40.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id VAA01203; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:20:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971027212023_-1560755556@mrin40.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3543 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stk@sunherald.infi.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:20:24 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 10/25/97 4:18:33 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net wrote: >L. Parker wrote: >> >> I just read a book yesterday that many of you might find interesting. It is >> a work of science fiction written by a scientist (Charles Pellegrino) >> called "The Killing Star". >> >> It covers several philosophical matters that we have recently discussed in >> this group and he and his co-author George Zebrowski do a much better job >> of elucidating the arguments than we did. It includes a lot of REAL quotes >> from several think tank sessions by various physicists, researchers, and >> authors including Isaac Asimov. >> >> Here is one especially relevant section from pages 114-115: >> >> "...all that we knew boiled down to three simple laws of alien behavior: >> >> 1) THEIR SURVIVAL WILL BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR SURVIVAL. If an alien >> species has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us. I t is >> hard to imagine a contrary case; species don't survive by being self >> sacrificing. > >True. Agreed. >> 2) WIMPS DON'T BECOME TOP DOGS. No species makes it to the top by being >> passive. The species in charge of any given planet will be highly >> intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary. > >No species makes it to the top by being overly aggresive. Nuclear war or >such would wipe them out quickly. Other, more 'sentient' civilizations >might be considerably more peaceful. If you are that advanced, war >becomes unnecessary. You simply come to someone else's system and say >"obey". But they could also colonize uninhabited systems with >non-"earth?" like planets, which would expand their 'empire'. If they >are that advanced, why would they want to crush other peoples when they >could become greater by learning knowledge from other civilizations? Given that all current major world powers are warlike cultures, this might be a myth. Theres a difference between being agressive and being stupid. "Ruthless pragmatism" might be the general by words of civilization. >> 3) THEY WILL ASSUME THAT THE FIRST TWO LAWS APPLY TO US." >> >> They came to pretty much the same conclusion as I did regarding the >> proximity of other intelligent species, there are no intelligent space >> faring species currently within our detection range, > >Unproven. There may be no MID-level civilizations here. Tribal >civilizations have no radio noise. Mid-civs like us emit everything. >High-tech civs might not use radio for much communication. And if they >weren't aiming at us, we might not hear them anyways. Besides, do you >really think if they'd been detected we'd hear about it? Probably not. If they had anything like our power grid we could easily detect them, and given most of the detectors are non-clasified (and keeping anything interesting classified is virtually imposible), if we found them we would all know. >> but they did inject a >> new idea. We automatically ASSUME because of our own built in prejudices >> that an intelligent, tool using, space faring species must come from a >> terrestrial type planet in a liquid water zone. They point out that it is >> quite feasible for them to come from an aquatic planet which may be OUTSIDE >> the liquid water zone as we currently define it. A large moon orbiting an >> outer jovian planet for instance. And these planets probably outnumber the >> terrestrial planets two or three to one.... > >They might not even need water. > >> >> Pick up a copy if you have the chance. > >I will. Sounds interesting. > >Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Oct 27 18:32 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["416" "Mon" "27" "October" "1997" "21:31:36" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "15" "Re: starship-design: Timeline " "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Timeline" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA29551 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 18:32:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from emout05.mail.aol.com (emout05.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.96]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA29541 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 18:32:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout05.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id VAA06656; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:31:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971027212718_-1124899380@emout05.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 415 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Timeline Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:31:36 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 10/26/97 5:30:57 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >I am planning on writing this page as if it were a paper presented to a >conference by a member of the staff at LIT (me of course). Would it be >better to present it in 1997 or should I present it in 2046 and use an >introduction format to summarize 1997 to 2046? > >Lee Write it from a 1997 perspective, it will sound less hokey. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Oct 27 19:29 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1900" "Mon" "27" "October" "1997" "22:25:09" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "50" "RE: Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA25543 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 19:29:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA25507 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 19:29:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 22:25:11 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 1899 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stk@sunherald.infi.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, "'KellySt@aol.com'" Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 22:25:09 -0500 Is this necessarily true? Ref.: http://www.landfield.com/faqs/astronomy/faq/part6/section-13.html How far away could we detect radio transmissions? The idea behind this part of the sci.astronomy FAQ is that detection of normal radio and television signals at interstellar distances is a myth. Math is included. One summary quote: "Even a 3000 meter diameter Radio Telescope could not detect the 'I Love Lucy' TV show (re-runs) at a distance of 0.01 Light-Years!" Narrowband radar is apparently much easier to detect, but will be short in duration and non-repeating. I don't know how easy to detect the EM leakage of a power-grid would be, but it doesn't sound likely. ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 "The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." > ---------- > From: KellySt@aol.com[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] > Reply To: KellySt@aol.com > Sent: Monday, October 27, 1997 9:20 PM > To: stk@sunherald.infi.net; starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out > there > > > > >Unproven. There may be no MID-level civilizations here. Tribal > >civilizations have no radio noise. Mid-civs like us emit everything. > >High-tech civs might not use radio for much communication. And if > they > >weren't aiming at us, we might not hear them anyways. Besides, do you > >really think if they'd been detected we'd hear about it? Probably > not. > > If they had anything like our power grid we could easily detect them, > and > given most of the detectors are non-clasified (and keeping anything > interesting classified is virtually imposible), if we found them we > would all > know. > > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Oct 27 20:06 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1610" "Mon" "27" "October" "1997" "23:06:20" "-0800" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "42" "Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA10509 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 20:06:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA10497 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 20:06:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from dcp2-76.gpt.infi.net (dcp2-71.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.71]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA14410 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:06:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <34558EEB.5F44@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: APETT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Length: 1609 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:06:20 -0800 David Levine wrote: > > Is this necessarily true? > > Ref.: > http://www.landfield.com/faqs/astronomy/faq/part6/section-13.html > How far away could we detect radio transmissions? > > The idea behind this part of the sci.astronomy FAQ is that detection of > normal radio and television signals at interstellar distances is a myth. > Math is included. One summary quote: > "Even a 3000 meter diameter Radio Telescope could not detect the 'I Love > Lucy' TV show (re-runs) at a distance of 0.01 Light-Years!" Yes, it is true. Unfortunately they can't hear TV shows without BIG radio arrays. Or is that fortunate...? > > Narrowband radar is apparently much easier to detect, but will be short > in duration and non-repeating. Like things such as the WOW signal, 34 META I signals, BETA signals... All I might add on the galactic plane. I have a paper by Carl Sagan on my computer. I'll email it to people by request, as its too big for the SSD mailing list. Limit was 40K I believe? > > I don't know how easy to detect the EM leakage of a power-grid would be, > but it doesn't sound likely. Well, that depends on what kind of power grid you're speaking of. Low tech would be virtually undetectible. Mid level, like us VERY detectible. High tech may be either blaringly loud, or more likely very silent. Or it could account for some of the IR emmisions we've detected around F, G, K class stars. Perhaps one reason they're not here is they are like us: "If it don't repeat, it don't matter anyways." Maybe we should document these signals and see if a pattern emerges. My two cents. Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Oct 27 20:15 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1298" "Mon" "27" "October" "1997" "23:15:15" "-0800" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "34" "Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA14253 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 20:15:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA14237 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 20:15:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from dcp2-76.gpt.infi.net (dcp2-71.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.71]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA28336 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:15:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <34559102.1F6@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: APETT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <971027212023_-1560755556@mrin40.mail.aol.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Length: 1297 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:15:15 -0800 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > >Unproven. There may be no MID-level civilizations here. Tribal > >civilizations have no radio noise. Mid-civs like us emit everything. > >High-tech civs might not use radio for much communication. And if they > >weren't aiming at us, we might not hear them anyways. Besides, do you > >really think if they'd been detected we'd hear about it? Probably not. > > If they had anything like our power grid we could easily detect them, and > given most of the detectors are non-clasified (and keeping anything > interesting classified is virtually imposible), if we found them we would all > know. > But it is very interesting and thought provoking that after META I detected 34 signals of possible ETI origin, most of which lie in the galactic plane, the US federal government decides to clip funding for SETI. Ironic, that as the paper said, "it savel all of .00002 percent of the national debt." I tend to think either: A: our government knows ETI's exist (not the roswell incident), and/or doesn't want it to be known by anyone, including themselves (likely) OR B: our government is prone to doing extremely coincidental things that just provoke to be examined by citizens such as I. But who knows. It makes for great science fiction though :) Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Oct 27 20:27 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2037" "Mon" "27" "October" "1997" "23:23:47" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "51" "RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA19234 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 20:27:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA19209 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 20:27:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:23:48 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 2036 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, "'Kyle R. Mcallister'" Subject: RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:23:47 -0500 > ---------- > From: Kyle R. Mcallister[SMTP:stk@sunherald.infi.net] > > David Levine wrote: > > > > Is this necessarily true? > > > > Ref.: > > http://www.landfield.com/faqs/astronomy/faq/part6/section-13.html > > How far away could we detect radio transmissions? > > > > The idea behind this part of the sci.astronomy FAQ is that detection > of > > normal radio and television signals at interstellar distances is a > myth. > > Math is included. One summary quote: > > "Even a 3000 meter diameter Radio Telescope could not detect the 'I > Love > > Lucy' TV show (re-runs) at a distance of 0.01 Light-Years!" > > Yes, it is true. Unfortunately they can't hear TV shows without BIG > radio arrays. Or is that fortunate...? > Actually, I was asking if Kelly's assumption that a power grid like ours would be detectable at interstellar distances, not if the quote from the FAQ was true. > Well, that depends on what kind of power grid you're speaking of. Low > tech would be virtually undetectible. Mid level, like us VERY > detectible. High tech may be either blaringly loud, or more likely > very > silent. Or it could account for some of the IR emmisions we've > detected > Well, this is what I mean - assuming that very highly advanced civilizations would contain their power leakage (it's a waste, for one thing) then we're only talking about civilizations like us. I'd like to know - are you and Kelly both assuming it would be detectable? Or do you guys have figures to back it up? WHY is the Earth's power grid detectable from, say, Tau Ceti? Narrowband radar I'll agree to - I've seen the numbers. But I'd like to see numbers on how much EM radiation our power supplies leak. ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 "The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Oct 28 09:00 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1893" "Tue" "28" "October" "1997" "10:58:41" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "45" "RE: Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" nil nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA12893 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:00:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA12538 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 08:59:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p2.gnt.com [204.49.68.207]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA05673; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:59:23 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:59:09 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCE390.841FBEC0.lparker@cacaphony.net> From: "L. Parker" To: "'David Levine'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:58:41 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1892 On Monday, October 27, 1997 9:25 PM, David Levine [SMTP:david@actionworld.com] wrote: > Is this necessarily true? > > Ref.: > http://www.landfield.com/faqs/astronomy/faq/part6/section-13.html > How far away could we detect radio transmissions? > > The idea behind this part of the sci.astronomy FAQ is that detection of > normal radio and television signals at interstellar distances is a myth. > Math is included. One summary quote: > "Even a 3000 meter diameter Radio Telescope could not detect the 'I Love > Lucy' TV show (re-runs) at a distance of 0.01 Light-Years!" So what you are saying is that it is really a matter of power, beam width, and frequency. Typical broadband transmissions such as TV just don't have the range, and with few exceptions, narrowband transmissions aren't carrying any signal which could be unequivocally artificial. Something else occurs to me - signal to noise ratio and signal format - conventional broadcast formats might appear to be simple noise at inters tellar distance due to signal degradation > > Narrowband radar is apparently much easier to detect, but will be short > in duration and non-repeating. > Microwave transmissions are in the radar range and have a much higher signal to noise ratio, but I still think the distances involved would reduce the transmission to noise. Perhaps if the transmission was digital the range would be greater? > I don't know how easy to detect the EM leakage of a power-grid would be, > but it doesn't sound likely. It requires a long wave guide with the receiver end positioned within a few feet of the source, otherwise it is drowned by noise. In other words, you can detect power leakage with a simple radio, but it is almost impossible to localize it without a lot of work. At any range over a few hundred feet, it gets lost in the background noise and is effectively undetectable. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Oct 28 13:21 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1195" "Tue" "28" "October" "1997" "11:10:33" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "25" "RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA24852 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:21:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@anesthesia.com [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA24782 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:21:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p9.gnt.com [204.49.68.214]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA07719; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:21:02 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:20:59 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCE3B5.18269A20.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1194 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'David Levine'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:10:33 -0600 On Monday, October 27, 1997 10:24 PM, David Levine [SMTP:david@actionworld.com] wrote: > Well, this is what I mean - assuming that very highly advanced > civilizations would contain their power leakage (it's a waste, for one > thing) then we're only talking about civilizations like us. I'd like to > know - are you and Kelly both assuming it would be detectable? Or do > you guys have figures to back it up? > > WHY is the Earth's power grid detectable from, say, Tau Ceti? > Narrowband radar I'll agree to - I've seen the numbers. But I'd like to > see numbers on how much EM radiation our power supplies leak. Let's put the EM leakage in perspective. We have already pretty well agreed that relatively high powered, broadcast signals, at shorter wavelengths with higher S/N ratios cannot be detected at interstellar distances. It would take a gigawatt maser to punch a recognizable signal out to any significant distance. So exactly how are you going to detect a trickle of leakage at long wavelengths, carrying no recognizable signal? Given the wavelengths that this leakage typically occurs at, I doubt that it even penetrates out of atmosphere...anybody know for sure? Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Oct 28 20:53 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2239" "Tue" "28" "October" "1997" "23:52:50" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "55" "Re: Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA03688 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 20:53:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com (emout10.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.25]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA03678 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 20:53:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA07108; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 23:52:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971028235033_-491044925@emout10.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2238 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stk@sunherald.infi.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 23:52:50 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 10/27/97 11:31:39 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net wrote: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> >Unproven. There may be no MID-level civilizations here. Tribal >> >civilizations have no radio noise. Mid-civs like us emit everything. >> >High-tech civs might not use radio for much communication. And if they >> >weren't aiming at us, we might not hear them anyways. Besides, do you >> >really think if they'd been detected we'd hear about it? Probably not. >> >> If they had anything like our power grid we could easily detect them, and >> given most of the detectors are non-clasified (and keeping anything >> interesting classified is virtually imposible), if we found them we would all >> know. >> > >But it is very interesting and thought provoking that after META I >detected 34 signals of possible ETI origin, most of which lie in the >galactic plane, the US federal government decides to clip funding for >SETI. Ironic, that as the paper said, "it savel all of .00002 percent of >the national debt." > >I tend to think either: > >A: our government knows ETI's exist (not the roswell incident), and/or >doesn't want it to be known by anyone, including themselves (likely) > >OR > >B: our government is prone to doing extremely coincidental things that >just provoke to be examined by citizens such as I. > >But who knows. It makes for great science fiction though :) > >Kyle Mcallister In a way those signals helped kill the program, but not in the way you'ld thing. NASA got funding by NEVER mentioning SETI. It was a microwave astronomy survey, period. But the signals, and the possible SETI implications got a lot of press. Suddenly congressmen and senators were geting calls about why was NASA wasting money searching for little green men. If the feds have so much money to waste on such things... etc. The funding was pulled the next year. You have to remember. The general public thinks NASA is a MAJOR fraction of the federal budget. So surveys have shown that people think DOD and NASA practically split all the federal budget between them (the public is stageringly ignorant about the budget). They thought META was big bucks, and wanted it stoped NOW. Congress obeyed the will of the people. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Oct 28 22:22 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2287" "Wed" "29" "October" "1997" "01:22:15" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "58" "Re: RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA04567 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:22:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from emout23.mail.aol.com (emout23.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.128]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA04552 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:22:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout23.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id BAA21462 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 01:22:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971028235613_218971796@emout08.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2286 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 01:22:15 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 10/27/97 11:31:55 PM, david@actionworld.com wrote: >> ---------- >> From: Kyle R. Mcallister[SMTP:stk@sunherald.infi.net] >> >> David Levine wrote: >> > >> > Is this necessarily true? >> > >> > Ref.: >> > http://www.landfield.com/faqs/astronomy/faq/part6/section-13.html >> > How far away could we detect radio transmissions? >> > >> > The idea behind this part of the sci.astronomy FAQ is that detection >> of >> > normal radio and television signals at interstellar distances is a >> myth. >> > Math is included. One summary quote: >> > "Even a 3000 meter diameter Radio Telescope could not detect the 'I >> Love >> > Lucy' TV show (re-runs) at a distance of 0.01 Light-Years!" >> >> Yes, it is true. Unfortunately they can't hear TV shows without BIG >> radio arrays. Or is that fortunate...? >> >Actually, I was asking if Kelly's assumption that a power grid like ours >would be detectable at interstellar distances, not if the quote from the >FAQ was true. > >> Well, that depends on what kind of power grid you're speaking of. Low >> tech would be virtually undetectible. Mid level, like us VERY >> detectible. High tech may be either blaringly loud, or more likely >> very >> silent. Or it could account for some of the IR emmisions we've >> detected >> >Well, this is what I mean - assuming that very highly advanced >civilizations would contain their power leakage (it's a waste, for one >thing) then we're only talking about civilizations like us. I'd like to >know - are you and Kelly both assuming it would be detectable? Or do >you guys have figures to back it up? > >WHY is the Earth's power grid detectable from, say, Tau Ceti? >Narrowband radar I'll agree to - I've seen the numbers. But I'd like to >see numbers on how much EM radiation our power supplies leak. You have to remember, the whole continental power grid is syncronized and pulsing at 60 cycles per secound, with trillions of watts of power flowing through it. Other EM sources lack the power, but are in frequencies that little else is in. One quote I remember was that earth out shines the sun in certain EM bands. Anyone interested in looking should have little difficulting seeing Earth em glow (and wouldn't limit themselves to a little 3,000 meter scope). Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Oct 29 11:32 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1594" "Wed" "29" "October" "1997" "14:32:13" "-0800" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "36" "Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA27958 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:32:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27930 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:32:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from dcp2-110.gpt.infi.net (dcp2-110.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.110]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA23846 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:32:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3457B96C.6CE9@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: APETT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <971028235033_-491044925@emout10.mail.aol.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Length: 1593 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:32:13 -0800 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > In a way those signals helped kill the program, but not in the way you'ld > thing. NASA got funding by NEVER mentioning SETI. Very interesting. But I recall that there was quite a bit of knowledge of the existence of SETI before then... > It was a microwave > astronomy survey, period. But the signals, and the possible SETI > implications got a lot of press. Suddenly congressmen and senators were > geting calls about why was NASA wasting money searching for little green men. > If the feds have so much money to waste on such things... etc. Perhaps some people didn't like the idea of it, but I suspect the majority of it originated with the congress/senators. Really you can't even blame them, but their superiors. > > The funding was pulled the next year. > > You have to remember. The general public thinks NASA is a MAJOR fraction of > the federal budget. So surveys have shown that people think DOD and NASA > practically split all the federal budget between them (the public is > stageringly ignorant about the budget). They thought META was big bucks, and > wanted it stoped NOW. Congress obeyed the will of the people. Just like they obey us now? They rarely do what the people want. I think this occasion in which they obeyed was of their own choice, not what the people said. I can't remember who said this, but: "When the Government does what the 'people' want, be cautious: something is amiss." Perhaps NASA should have explained that META was cheap. But no, we like to pretend we're dismantling nuclear weapons.... Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Oct 29 18:06 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1558" "Wed" "29" "October" "1997" "20:04:55" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "36" "RE: RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA18856 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 18:06:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@anesthesia.com [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA18844 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 18:06:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p10.gnt.com [204.49.68.215]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA18002; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 20:06:34 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 20:06:30 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCE4A6.25866500.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1557 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'KellySt@aol.com'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 20:04:55 -0600 On Wednesday, October 29, 1997 12:22 AM, KellySt@aol.com [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: > > You have to remember, the whole continental power grid is syncronized and > pulsing at 60 cycles per secound, with trillions of watts of power > flowing > through it. Other EM sources lack the power, but are in frequencies that > little else is in. One quote I remember was that earth out shines the sun > in > certain EM bands. Anyone interested in looking should have little > difficulting seeing Earth em glow (and wouldn't limit themselves to a > little > 3,000 meter scope). > Well, actually, I don't think the whole continental power grid is running at 60 Hz, although almost all of the smaller delivery trunks are I'm sure. Either way, I don't think that it would make any difference. We picked 60 Hz arbitrarily and even if it was to be detected the receiver wouldn't have any idea why it was significant. Not only does the rest of the world run at different settings but the normal fluctuations from day to night puts another harmonic on it so what they will get is a really weird pulsar effect rather than something immediately recognizable as artificial. On top of this, the power grid may be transmitting trillions of watts (in this country at least) but it isn't leaking anywhere close to that amount. I don't know for sure, if anybody has exact numbers on what the leakage is and how much is EMISSIVE RADIATION - not just heat please post them. Which brings us back to range, just how far does 60 Hz EM radiation carry anyway? Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Oct 29 19:03 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["179" "Wed" "29" "October" "1997" "19:03:29" "-0800" "Ken Wharton" "wharton@physics.ucla.edu" nil "8" "starship-design: One number" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA24284 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 19:03:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from physics.ucla.edu (physics.ucla.edu [128.97.23.13]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA24270 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 19:03:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from watt by physics.ucla.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA23044; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 19:03:28 -0800 Received: by watt (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA21521; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 19:03:29 -0800 Message-Id: <199710300303.TAA21521@watt> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 178 From: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: One number Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 19:03:29 -0800 Don't know the answer to most of the power grid questions, but I do recall that the power grid of the entire world is about 40 trillion watts. Leakage percentage, anyone? Ken From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Oct 30 07:58 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2610" "Thu" "30" "October" "1997" "10:54:36" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "63" "FW: RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "FW: RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA16957 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 07:58:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA16866 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 07:58:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 10:54:36 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 2609 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: FW: RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 10:54:36 -0500 Whoops - I had sent this to Kelly instead of everyone a few days ago. ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 "The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." > ---------- > From: David Levine > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 1997 2:10 AM > To: 'KellySt@aol.com' > Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there > > I dunno. I assumed the following about the signal: > > Transmitting frequency, f = 60 Hz, bandwidth = 1 Hz > Power = 10 trillion watts > Transmitting area = 23040000 m^2 (around 3000 miles by 3000 miles) > System temperature = 300 kelvin > > And using the equations at the link I posted previously, I make it > such that an Arecibo-like radio telescope can detect this at around > 0.2 light-years. Also, this assumes that neither our nor their > atmospheres absorb any of the energy. If just theirs does, it assumes > their Arecibo is in space. > > If we double the power and the transmitting area, we are detectable at > 1.6 light years. If we QUADRUPLE BOTH, we are detectable at 12.8 > light years. Here we are talking 40 terrawatts being broadcast > contiguously over an area equal to nearly 2/3rds of the Earth's > landmass. And, again, this assumes the atmosphere plays no dampening > or blocking role. > > I hope you were kidding about 3000 m being a small telescope. > Remember, this 3 kilometer telescope could not pick up TV signals at > 1/100 of a light year. To detect the signal at 10 light years > requires a 95 kilometer telescope. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > David Levine david@actionworld.com > Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ > ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 > "The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at > once." > > > You have to remember, the whole continental power grid is syncronized > and > pulsing at 60 cycles per secound, with trillions of watts of power > flowing > through it. Other EM sources lack the power, but are in frequencies > that > little else is in. One quote I remember was that earth out shines the > sun in > certain EM bands. Anyone interested in looking should have little > difficulting seeing Earth em glow (and wouldn't limit themselves to a > little > 3,000 meter scope). > > Kelly > > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Oct 31 03:00 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["844" "Fri" "31" "October" "1997" "11:59:36" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "28" "starship-design: SFF" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA03339 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 03:00:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA03334 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 03:00:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-002.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0xREpZ-001Z9pC; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:01:33 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 843 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: SFF Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:59:36 +0100 Hi all, Did anyone else receive the following message? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ $250,000 Space PRIZE to be announced November 7th at "Space Frontier Conference VI" FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE In an attempt to open the space frontier to private human activity, and to destroy the myth that space is owned by any government or any government agency, two international space organizations will announce a $250,000 "Cheap Access to Space" (CATS) Prize on November 7th at "Space Frontier Conference VI" in Los Angeles. ... etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I received it 3 times. Makes me wonder were they found me, and why they guessed that I might be interested. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Oct 31 12:29 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["733" "Fri" "31" "October" "1997" "15:25:11" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "21" "RE: starship-design: Ancient" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA00384 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:29:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA00357 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:29:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:25:12 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 732 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, "'TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Ancient Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:25:11 -0500 I should have them. I will look in my archives. Meanwhile, did anyone see this article about why Alcubeirre's ideas won't work? http://www.newscientist.com/ns/970726/nwarpdrive.html ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 "The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." > ---------- > From: > TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl[SMTP:TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl] > I'm trying to get complete newsletter history of Starship Design. > Therefore > I ask if anyone has old SD newsletters? > > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Oct 31 15:28 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1671" "Fri" "31" "October" "1997" "18:27:27" "-0800" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "33" "Re: starship-design: Ancient" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA20817 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:27:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA20695 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:27:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.0.193.137] ([207.0.193.137]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA11732 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 18:27:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <345A938F.1FE4@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: APETT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Length: 1670 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Ancient Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 18:27:27 -0800 David Levine wrote: > > I should have them. I will look in my archives. > > Meanwhile, did anyone see this article about why Alcubeirre's ideas > won't work? > http://www.newscientist.com/ns/970726/nwarpdrive.html I read this, and disagree that warp drive is impossible. Granted, it would take this much mass to warp space. Yet I have read the actual paper by Pfenning and Ford. They say that if it is possible to warp space in a thinner region around the ship, it would only require 1/4 solar mass of energy (or something like that). However, they fail to accept the possibilities that space may be warped by means other than concentration of mass. The possiblity remains that a way could be found to warp space using zero-point interactions, or maybe something I can't even think of. Don't give up hope yet. Dr. Jack Sarfatti sure hasn't. We can't design a starship around this theory, but it is wrong to say that since we simply don't know how to do something, it is impossible. To do so is extremely arrogant. BTW, I'm not calling anyone on SSD arrogant, just whoever says that "since we don't know how to do it, it can't be done." I have confidence that if humans are here in the year 4000AD? or some such that there may be such news stories as "first warp driven ship reaches ????" Steve was right when he told me that we cannot design an FTL driven ship. However, many scientists that say FTL is impossible forever are, how shall I say it, unscientific. Kyle Mcallister P.S.: Has anyone heard of this 'anisotropic universe' theory by Borge Nodland? I'd like to hear others oppinions on this. I have an URL if needed. (I really don't understand much of it) From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Oct 31 15:41 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["998" "Fri" "31" "October" "1997" "18:37:00" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "21" "RE: starship-design: Ancient" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA00456 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:41:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA00390 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:40:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 18:37:02 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 997 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, "'Kyle R. Mcallister'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Ancient Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 18:37:00 -0500 Tieing together two threads here... The interesting thing about FTL is that if it really is possible, it makes Fermi's Paradox even more haunting. i.e. if we're talking FTL, we're now talking about the entire universe, not just our galaxy. I would say that if FTL is possible, then I feel certain we are either the only intelligent life, or intelligent life is rare enough that it is conceivable we are the only species out of the handful of existing ones that has the mind-set to want to colonize the stars. ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 "The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." > ---------- > From: Kyle R. Mcallister[SMTP:stk@sunherald.infi.net] > I read this, and disagree that warp drive is impossible. Granted, it > > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Oct 31 18:50 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["830" "Fri" "31" "October" "1997" "21:50:13" "-0800" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: Ancient" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA27653 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 18:50:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA27636 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 18:50:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.0.193.137] ([207.0.193.137]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA19110; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 21:50:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <345AC315.2382@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: APETT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Length: 829 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: David Levine CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Ancient Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 21:50:13 -0800 David Levine wrote: > > Tieing together two threads here... > > The interesting thing about FTL is that if it really is possible, it > makes Fermi's Paradox even more haunting. i.e. if we're talking FTL, > we're now talking about the entire universe, not just our galaxy. I > would say that if FTL is possible, then I feel certain we are either the > only intelligent life, or intelligent life is rare enough that it is > conceivable we are the only species out of the handful of existing ones > that has the mind-set to want to colonize the stars. I have always thought that there are fewer than 100 civilizations in our galaxy. You add an interesting problem to this puzzle. This is a good thing though, it makes us think. Then again, maybe FTL is rarely used because of some unforseen danger. Who knows? Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Nov 1 05:58 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2986" "Sat" "1" "November" "1997" "07:33:08" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "67" "RE: RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA02898 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 05:58:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@anesthesia.com [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA02893 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 05:58:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p12.gnt.com [204.49.68.217]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA17446; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 07:57:52 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 07:57:49 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCE69B.D910AF80.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2985 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'David Levine'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 07:33:08 -0600 On Thursday, October 30, 1997 9:55 AM, David Levine [SMTP:david@actionworld.com] wrote: > Whoops - I had sent this to Kelly instead of everyone a few days ago. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > David Levine david@actionworld.com > Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ > ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 > "The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." > > > ---------- > > From: David Levine > > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 1997 2:10 AM > > To: 'KellySt@aol.com' > > Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there > > > > I dunno. I assumed the following about the signal: > > > > Transmitting frequency, f = 60 Hz, bandwidth = 1 Hz > > Power = 10 trillion watts > > Transmitting area = 23040000 m^2 (around 3000 miles by 3000 miles) > > System temperature = 300 kelvin I would only disagree with your assumptions for power. That is the actual power consumption, not what is broadcast by leakage. > > > > And using the equations at the link I posted previously, I make it > > such that an Arecibo-like radio telescope can detect this at around > > 0.2 light-years. Also, this assumes that neither our nor their > > atmospheres absorb any of the energy. If just theirs does, it assumes > > their Arecibo is in space. Ours probably does absorb some, but what happens when we move off planet and start building solar power stations and beaming the power around with microwaves? I didn't look at the link you posted, would you either repost it or plug in the figures for say, a ten megawatt maser? I wouldn't want to make assumptions about their telescope. Using improved electronics and signal processing we ourselves have managed to improve the sensitivity of all our sensors by several orders of magnitude. > > > > If we double the power and the transmitting area, we are detectable at > > 1.6 light years. If we QUADRUPLE BOTH, we are detectable at 12.8 > > light years. Here we are talking 40 terrawatts being broadcast > > contiguously over an area equal to nearly 2/3rds of the Earth's > > landmass. And, again, this assumes the atmosphere plays no dampening > > or blocking role. Well, even if we give them the benefit of the doubt and assume their detector sensitivity is ten times better than ours, they still shouldn't be able to detect leakage. Beamed signals might just be within possibility. > > > > I hope you were kidding about 3000 m being a small telescope. > > Remember, this 3 kilometer telescope could not pick up TV signals at > > 1/100 of a light year. To detect the signal at 10 light years > > requires a 95 kilometer telescope. > > I don't find that unreasonable, the astronomy community is already discussing radia telescopes in orbit larger than that. Of course they are talking about very long baseline arrays, but it shouldn't make any difference. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Nov 1 05:58 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["419" "Sat" "1" "November" "1997" "07:47:41" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "12" "RE: starship-design: Ancient" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA02925 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 05:58:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@anesthesia.com [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA02920 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 05:58:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p12.gnt.com [204.49.68.217]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA17464; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 07:58:04 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 07:58:05 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCE69B.E29890E0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 418 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'David Levine'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Ancient Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 07:47:41 -0600 On Friday, October 31, 1997 2:25 PM, David Levine [SMTP:david@actionworld.com] wrote: > Meanwhile, did anyone see this article about why Alcubeirre's ideas > won't work? > http://www.newscientist.com/ns/970726/nwarpdrive.html John Cramer already addressed this I think. I don't remember if he actually worked any of the math though. Either way, this is not something we are going to be doing any time soon... Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Nov 1 05:58 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["425" "Sat" "1" "November" "1997" "07:56:54" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "12" "RE: starship-design: Ancient" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA02939 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 05:58:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@anesthesia.com [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA02933 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 05:58:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p12.gnt.com [204.49.68.217]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA17470; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 07:58:08 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 07:58:09 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCE69B.E4E280E0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 424 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Kyle R. Mcallister'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Ancient Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 07:56:54 -0600 On Friday, October 31, 1997 11:50 PM, Kyle R. Mcallister [SMTP:stk@sunherald.infi.net] wrote: > << File: ATT00005.txt; charset = koi8-r >> Kyle and David have raised a good point. The Drake equation basically said that if there was ANY other life out there then we should already have seen them and it assumed a rate of expansion determined by SUBLIGHT travel. Makes you wonder about Fermi's Paradox even more... Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Nov 1 05:58 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["114" "Sat" "1" "November" "1997" "07:35:26" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "6" "RE: starship-design: SFF" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA02958 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 05:58:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@anesthesia.com [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA02949 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 05:58:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p12.gnt.com [204.49.68.217]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA17452; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 07:57:59 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 07:58:01 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCE69B.DFE86500.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 113 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Timothy van der Linden'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: SFF Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 07:35:26 -0600 No, I didn't see it, but I don't usually read my junk mail... Its not much compared to the X-Prize though. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Nov 2 15:28 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["276" "Sat" "1" "November" "1997" "17:18:34" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "12" "starship-design: Jim Smith's Free Virtual Galaxy Project" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA23880 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 15:28:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@anesthesia.com [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA23872 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 15:27:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p21.gnt.com [204.49.68.226]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA13101 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 17:27:54 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 17:27:52 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCE7B4.A60C8860.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Length: 275 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Jim Smith's Free Virtual Galaxy Project Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 17:18:34 -0600 I haven't had a chance to actually run the software I downloaded from this site, but if it lives up to even half of what it says... The Hipparcos data is not only available at this site, the software uses it for the sim! http://www.netwave.net/members/jrsmith/ Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Nov 4 00:09 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4492" "Tue" "4" "November" "1997" "03:05:24" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "99" "starship-design: Fwd: $250,000 Space Prize to be Announced" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA04350 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 00:08:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from emout23.mail.aol.com (emout23.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.128]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA04335 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 00:08:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout23.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id DAA02929; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 03:05:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971104001246_797181794@emout11.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 4491 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, rickj@btio.com, viperkjp@wam.umd.edu, indy@is.com, ronald.wurth@lmco.com Subject: starship-design: Fwd: $250,000 Space Prize to be Announced Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 03:05:24 -0500 (EST) FYI --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: $250,000 Space Prize to be Announced Date: 97-10-30 09:22:08 EST From: SFFCon6 $250,000 Space PRIZE to be announced November 7th at "Space Frontier Conference VI" FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE In an attempt to open the space frontier to private human activity, and to destroy the myth that space is owned by any government or any government agency, two international space organizations will announce a $250,000 "Cheap Access to Space" (CATS) Prize on November 7th at "Space Frontier Conference VI" in Los Angeles. The conference, with the theme "Space: Open for Business", will be held at the Los Angeles Sheraton Gateway Hotel from November 7-9, 1997. A central topic will be the transformation of space from a government program to a real frontier driven by commercial development. The conference will feature frank discussions about privatizing the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station. There will also be presentations on new commercial markets, such as the emerging space tourism industry, recent plans to privately capture and mine asteroids, and proposals to use space solar power to compete with today's coal and nuclear energy systems. The formal announcement of the $250,000 CATS prize will be made at a press conference and reception on Friday, November 7 at 7 pm. The prize will be awarded to the first private team to launch a 2 kilogram payload to an altitude of 200 km or greater. Conference attendees and members of the press may attend the reception. The rules for the competition, and other details, will be announced at this time. The Space Frontier Foundation, an international space policy and media organization, will manage the competition and is holding the prize which has been funded by the Foundation for the International Non-Governmental Development of Space (FINDS), a private 7 million dollar endowment. "Governments don't open frontiers, people do" stated Foundation President and FINDS Executive Director Rick N. Tumlinson. "Prizes have been used throughout history to foster innovation in the private sector. From the age of exploration to Lindberg they have inspired imaginations and helped knock down barriers." A special all-day session on Friday, November 7, sponsored by the U.S. Air Force's Phillips Laboratory, will focus on radical innovations in spaceplane technologies and services being offered by the new generation of entrepreneurial rocket companies. The conference is being co-sponsored by the ProSpace, the "Citizen's Space Lobby." Guest speakers will include such notables as former astronauts turned entrepreneurs "Buzz" Aldrin (Apollo 11), Charles "Pete" Conrad (Apollo 12) and Dr. Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17), Mars advocate and author Dr. Robert Zubrin, asteroid resources expert Dr. John Lewis (University of Arizona), world-renowned robot builder Red Whitaker (Carnegie Mellon University), NASA's John Mankins (NASA/HQ), and former congresswoman Andrea Seastrand. "Whether you are an investor, an entrepreneur, a space reporter, or working on a movie about our future, this is the one place to be this year," advises Tumlinson, who has testified multiple times before Congress on space commercialization issues. "It's like the day before the computer revolution. This stuff is real, it's beginning right now, and it will soon change our civilization forever." The Space Frontier Foundation is a not-for-profit organization that has been fighting since 1988 to change how we all think about, and attempt to open, the space frontier. Our goal is the near term and irreversible expansion of the human race into space, and the permanent settlement of the high frontier. Registration for this 3-day conference is $90, or $70 for students. Registration will open at 8 a.m. on Friday, November 7th. The Sheraton Gateway Hotel is located at 6101 West Century Boulevard near Los Angeles International Airport (310-642-1111). For more detailed information on the conference visit our web site at: . For information on the Space Frontier Foundation, or to receive press credentials, call 1(800) 78-SPACE. Our Email address is: OpenFrontier@Delphi.com Ben Muniz, Director of Public Affairs Space Frontier Foundation Space Frontier Conference VI, 7-9 Nov 1997, Los Angeles, CA @ LAX see for details From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Nov 4 00:10 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1557" "Tue" "4" "November" "1997" "03:09:29" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "39" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA04596 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 00:10:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from emout27.mail.aol.com (emout27.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.132]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA04589 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 00:10:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout27.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id DAA25075; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 03:09:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971104000642_-1426402848@emout07.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1556 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: david@actionworld.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 03:09:29 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 10/29/97 5:00:27 AM, you wrote: >I dunno. I assumed the following about the signal: > >Transmitting frequency, f = 60 Hz, bandwidth = 1 Hz >Power = 10 trillion watts >Transmitting area = 23040000 m^2 (around 3000 miles by 3000 miles) >System temperature = 300 kelvin > >And using the equations at the link I posted previously, I make it such >that an Arecibo-like radio telescope can detect this at around 0.2 >light-years. Also, this assumes that neither our nor their atmospheres >absorb any of the energy. If just theirs does, it assumes their Arecibo >is in space. > >If we double the power and the transmitting area, we are detectable at >1.6 light years. If we QUADRUPLE BOTH, we are detectable at 12.8 light >years. Here we are talking 40 terrawatts being broadcast contiguously >over an area equal to nearly 2/3rds of the Earth's landmass. And, >again, this assumes the atmosphere plays no dampening or blocking role. > >I hope you were kidding about 3000 m being a small telescope. Remember, >this 3 kilometer telescope could not pick up TV signals at 1/100 of a >light year. To detect the signal at 10 light years requires a 95 >kilometer telescope. > >----------------------------------------------------------------- >David Levine Hum depressing numbers on the transmit range. No I wasn't kiding that I though a 3 kilometrer antena was small. A few sats spaced around lunar orbit would make a nice 3 light secound antenna. If we were really interested in looking that wouldn't be an outragious expense. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Nov 4 00:11 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2227" "Tue" "4" "November" "1997" "03:11:05" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "60" "Re: Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA04936 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 00:11:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from emout23.mail.aol.com (emout23.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.128]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA04911 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 00:11:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout23.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id DAA09065; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 03:11:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971104002244_104183526@emout11.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2226 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stk@sunherald.infi.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 03:11:05 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 10/31/97 7:14:47 AM, stk@sunherald.infi.net wrote: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> In a way those signals helped kill the program, but not in the way you'ld >> thing. NASA got funding by NEVER mentioning SETI. > >Very interesting. But I recall that there was quite a bit of knowledge >of the existence of SETI before then... Knowledge, yes. Federal funding, no. >> It was a microwave >> astronomy survey, period. But the signals, and the possible SETI >> implications got a lot of press. Suddenly congressmen and senators were >> geting calls about why was NASA wasting money searching for little green men. >> If the feds have so much money to waste on such things... etc. > >Perhaps some people didn't like the idea of it, but I suspect the >majority of it originated with the congress/senators. Really you can't >even blame them, but their superiors. >> >> The funding was pulled the next year. >> >> You have to remember. The general public thinks NASA is a MAJOR fraction of >> the federal budget. So surveys have shown that people think DOD and NASA >> practically split all the federal budget between them (the public is >> stageringly ignorant about the budget). They thought META was big bucks, and >> wanted it stoped NOW. Congress obeyed the will of the people. > >Just like they obey us now? They rarely do what the people want. I think >this occasion in which they obeyed was of their own choice, not what the >people said. I can't remember who said this, but: "When the Government >does what the 'people' want, be cautious: something is amiss." On the contrary, the gov always does what we ask. Pity we ask such shallow contradictory things. >Perhaps NASA should have explained that META was cheap. But no, we like >to pretend we're dismantling nuclear weapons.... > >Kyle Mcallister They can't even explain that NASA is cheap! No it boils down to federal money (millions probably) being spent on a stupid boondoggle like alien hunting. Why do you think things like this kept Sen. Proxmire in office for so long? With a bit of spin control it sound like your starving children to let scientists doing the increadibly stupid. Truth means little in Washington. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Nov 4 00:57 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3195" "Tue" "4" "November" "1997" "03:56:50" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "74" "starship-design: Re: Involvement in The Starship Design Project." "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA14137 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 00:57:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from emout28.mail.aol.com (emout28.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.133]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA14110 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 00:57:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout28.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id DAA10611; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 03:56:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971104000239_505921247@emout05.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3194 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lance@utah-inter.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Involvement in The Starship Design Project. Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 03:56:50 -0500 (EST) Hi Mike. Glad you liked the web site. (no I don't have a PhD.) As for joining, No degree required, we're an open discusion group open to about all. On the web page their should be a entry field to subcribe to the mailing list. Once on the list our discusion mail will forward to you also. If you respond to starship designs (see mail list) your messages will forward to others in the group. Beyond that is open to negotiation. Kelly Starks In a message dated 10/31/97 2:06:23 AM, you wrote: >I am sending this email to you (Dr.? Kelly Starks) in an attempt to find >out what kind of credentials I would need in order to become involved in >your project. Maybe if I gave you a little bit of information on myself >that would assist you in your response. I am currently completing my >undergraduate degree in astrophysics. I have completed the following >series of math and physics courses at my local university: > > * Advanced Algebra > * Trigonometry > * Analytical Geometry > * Differential Calculus > * Integral Calculus > * Infinite Series Calculus > * Ordinary Differential Equations > * Matrices & Vector Analysis > * Non-Calculus Based Physics (Newtonian Mechanics) > * Calculus Based Engineering Physics (Newtonian Mechanics) > >Also I have a detailed non-mathmatical understanding of the following >astronomical concepts which may be applicable to the project: > > * Black Holes--singularities, event horizons, white holes, etc... > * Stellar evolution > * Supernovae Type I & II > * Stellar classification > * Mass/Luminosity Relationship > * Special Relativity (some mathematical understanding here) time > dilation, mass increase, Lorentz length contraction > * General Relativity--Principle of Equivalence, warping of space-time > by mass/energy, gravity as a consequence of curved 4 dimensional > space-time. > * Blue sheet effect (the elimination of the possibility of white > holes) > * Quantum Mechanics--quantum connection, action at a distance, > quantum tunneling, wave functions & probability densities, quantum > uncertainty > * Baby Universes as proposed by Dr. Hawking > * Wormholes > >These are probably the most applicable concepts in astronomy to your >project. I have become fascinated by the study of different propulsion >techniques to make interstellar travel even somewhat plausible within >the next century. I did a relativistic analysis of the so called >Bussard Ramjet for my calculus-based physics class and I have been >hooked on the whole idea behind your project ever since. As of now I >have reviewed numerous proposals for starship design ranging from the >ramjet (and it's modified versions) to solar/laser/particle beam sails. >Dyson's gravity machine was also an interesting, if somewhat implausible >proposal. I loved your project web site and will return often. Any >response will be deeply appreciated. Even if I can't get involved in >the project directly because of lack of schooling I would like to help >in some other capacity. Let me know if there's anything I can do to >help you with the project! > >From: michael lance allen From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Nov 4 00:59 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1185" "Tue" "4" "November" "1997" "03:58:16" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "36" "starship-design: Re: Atmosphere" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA14343 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 00:59:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin43.mail.aol.com (mrin43.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.153]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA14330 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 00:58:59 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin43.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id DAA10824; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 03:58:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971104001625_629409252@mrin43.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1184 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: m.mendoncajr@ic.ac.uk, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Atmosphere Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 03:58:16 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 10/31/97 1:42:49 AM, you wrote: >Dear Kelly: > > I was wandering through the web and found your site. As I was taking a >look at the Alien Studies page I saw what you wrote about the >atmospheric requirements of a planet to support life. Well, I think that >it was quite rightly demonstrated that the oxigen in our atmosphere came >AFTER the development of life, specifically photosynthethizing life. Any >free oxigen in an atmosphere would quicly combine with metals or other >elements like carbon to generate rust and carbon dioxide, unless life >processes would continually hamper this. Thanks for your attention, I >hope it would be of help! > > Yours, > > Milton. > >********************************* >Milton Mendonca Jr. >Dept. of Biology >Imperial College at Silwood Park >Ascot, Berks >SL5 7PY >UK >********************************* Quite true. Oxegen polution was a catostophic even in our biosphere history. However signs of free oxegen in an atmosphere is considered a good sign of life, since it would otherwise corode out of the air rapidly. So Ox isn't needed for life, but life may be needed for free oxegen in the atmosphere. Kelly Starks From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Nov 4 06:50 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["616" "Tue" "4" "November" "1997" "08:50:06" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "16" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA27635 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 06:50:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id GAA27627 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 06:50:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA09104; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:50:07 -0600 Message-Id: <9711041450.AA09104@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <971104000642_-1426402848@emout07.mail.aol.com> from "KellySt@aol.com" at Nov 4, 97 03:09:29 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 615 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:50:06 -0600 (CST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >No I wasn't kiding that I though a 3 kilometrer antena was small. A few sats >spaced around lunar orbit would make a nice 3 light secound antenna. If we >were really interested in looking that wouldn't be an outragious expense. A few sats spaced in orbit could give you a baseline of 3 light seconds, but this will only improve resolution. Sensitivity is still limited by the total gathering area. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Nov 4 07:05 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2462" "Tue" "4" "November" "1997" "10:01:24" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "57" "starship-design: Space Money" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA00509 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 07:05:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA00493 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 07:05:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:01:26 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 2461 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: starship-design: Space Money Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:01:24 -0500 Well, since we're talking about NASA's budget, there was a Reuter's article back in July that really ticked me off. It was about a poll that said "most Americans believe there is intelligent life in outer space, but few think it can be found on other planets in the solar system". By "few" they mean over a third. Sigh. Remember, we're not talking "life" we're talking "intelligent life" and fully a third of the American populace believes it can be found in the solar system (I assume we're talking besides Earth, here!) Anyway, the poll goes on to say that most Americans support space missions and want more of them, but they also think we're already spending too much on space and should cut funding. So I did some research back then on my own into the federal budget: NASA's budget for FY97 was $13.8 billion. This is 0.8% of the federal budget. For comparison with some other agencies: NASA: 0.8% Department of Energy: 0.9% Civil Defense: 2.0% Veterans Affairs: 2.4% Office of Personnel Management: 2.7% Department of Agriculture: 3.4% Interest on the National Debt: 14.6% Department of Defense: 15.1% Social Security: 24.4% So far the -best- NASA has ever been funded was when it was 4.4% of the federal budget, in 1966. Since that time, the worst was when it was 0.7% in 1986. The projections for the next few years show NASA's budget going back down to 0.7% again. Imagine what NASA could do with double its budget (which would still only be 1.6% of the federal budget)! The problem is, of course, that most people really have no idea how much we spend on space. When someone in the government wants to win points with the public by cutting the budget, space programs make an easy target: you just say "we're spending millions on this stuff which has no direct immediate benefit to you" and you've got it made! What they never tell anyone is how many OTHER programs out there are getting even more money for even less immediate value to the public. I think if they quoted percentages rather than actual dollar amounts, the space program would be seen in a much better light by the public. David ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 "The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Nov 4 11:51 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["254" "Tue" "4" "November" "1997" "20:48:56" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "12" "starship-design: Resolution" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09782 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:51:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA09737 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:50:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-011.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0xSp00-001XnAC; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:50:52 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 253 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Resolution Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 20:48:56 +0100 Isaac writes: >A few sats spaced in orbit could give you a baseline of 3 light seconds, >but this will only improve resolution. > >Sensitivity is still limited by the total gathering area. That's exactly (well almost) what I'd have written. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Nov 4 12:52 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1405" "Tue" "4" "November" "1997" "15:51:18" "-0800" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "37" "Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA15154 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 12:52:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA15115 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 12:52:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.0.193.129] ([207.0.193.129]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA01718; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:51:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <345FB4F5.411C@sunherald.infi.net> Organization: APETT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <971104002244_104183526@emout11.mail.aol.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Length: 1404 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 15:51:18 -0800 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > On the contrary, the gov always does what we ask. Pity we ask such shallow > contradictory things. The government does what it wants. Why do you suppose it is illegal to have a copy of the constitution hanging in your office? I'm telling you, the government is corrupt. Wait ~30 years. See how many of our rights are taken away. Unfortunately, most new generations of people (currently children) do not care if our rights are taken away. > They can't even explain that NASA is cheap! No it boils down to federal > money (millions probably) being spent on a stupid boondoggle like alien > hunting. Why do you think things like this kept Sen. Proxmire in office for > so long? Well, that is possible. It's also possible that there was a bit of 'control'. > With a bit of spin control it sound like your starving children to > let scientists doing the increadibly stupid. Fact: There is enough food in the world to feed EVERY HUMAN BEING IN THE WORLD. I don't like seeing people starve, but there's nothing I can do about it. Ask your wondrous government why they don't feed those people. As far as people that are perfectly able to work and have a good life but are too lazy to: let them starve. Why should we have to pay for them? Use that money for SETI/NASA. > > Truth means little in Washington. Washington *makes* the truth. Just my two cents Kyle Mcallister From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Nov 8 08:15 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2708" "Sat" "8" "November" "1997" "09:35:59" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "69" "starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 78 (fwd)" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA27233 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 08:15:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@anesthesia.com [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA27221 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 08:15:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p40.gnt.com [204.49.68.245]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA23038 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 10:15:18 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 10:15:15 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCEC2F.34A3CF60.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2707 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 78 (fwd) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 09:35:59 -0600 -----Original Message----- From: Chris W. Johnson [SMTP:chrisj@mail.utexas.edu] Sent: Friday, November 07, 1997 5:54 PM To: Single Stage Rocket Technology News Subject: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 78 (fwd) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 13:36:55 -0500 (EST) From: NSS List Account To: DC-X Subject: Space Access Update #78 11/6/97 (fwd) Reply-To: delta-clipper@world.std.com Space Access Update #78 11/6/97 Copyright 1997 by Space Access Society ________________________________________________________________________ Space Visionary, Rocket Pioneer G. Harry Stine Dies At 69 It is with great sadness I report that G. Harry Stine died suddenly at his home the afternoon of Sunday, November 2nd, 1997. Harry's wife Barbara came home Sunday evening and found him by his word processor. He had been fine the night before and when Barbara left for a horse show that morning; cause of death is believed to be a stroke or heart attack. Harry was a space visionary and a hard-headed rocket engineer too, the author of more than fifty books of science fact and fiction, a lifelong private pilot, "The Father of Model Rocketry", a kind cheerful and selfless gentleman who feared neither man nor bureaucrat, a loving husband and father of three, and a key figure in bringing the concept of radically cheaper space transportation to its current respectability. Harry had three books due out soon - a revised paperback version of last year's "Halfway To Anywhere", an updated version of his "Handbook For Space Colonists" now called "Living In Space" that's just hitting the stores, and an updated version of his seminal work on space development "The Third Industrial Revolution", just shipped off to his publisher. Services for Harry will be held Friday November 7th at 2 pm, at Grimshaw Bethany Chapel, 710 West Bethany Home Road in Phoenix. Harry's family has asked that people not send flowers, but rather make donations to a scholarship fund that will be set up in his name. Send checks to: The G.Harry Stine Space Pioneers Memorial Fund c/o Bill Stine 6012 E Hidden Valley Drive Cave Creek AZ 85331 Harry was an advisor, a mentor, but above all a friend. I'll miss him more than I know how to put down in words. We all will. - Henry Vanderbilt ________________________________________________________________________ Space Access Society http://www.space-access.org space.access@space-access.org "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the Solar System" - Robert Anson Heinlein From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Nov 8 09:16 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1645" "Sat" "8" "November" "1997" "11:16:10" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "43" "starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA09535 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 09:16:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@anesthesia.com [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA09526 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 09:16:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p19.gnt.com [204.49.68.224]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA27626 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 11:16:40 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 11:16:37 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCEC37.C7CD2CC0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1644 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 11:16:10 -0600 I would like to start a discussion on a topic which I know very little about. Does anybody out there know much about chemistry? Particularly refractory metal compounds with high molecular weight? Any ship we design that is capable of achieving substantial fractions of c will be exposed to enormous amounts of radiation and material impacts. I have seen several proposals for using frozen deuterium ice (fuel) surrounding the ship and providing shielding from impacts. Of course, this assumes that you are using hydrogen for fuel... I want to explore alternatives for the actual hull of the craft. What metals are available, what sort of melting points, etc. I think of particular interest would be the X-ray density, ductility, and hardness numbers. Some of the most refractory metals with high melting points and high x-ray density are borides and carbides of Tantalum, Tungsten, and Uranium. Unfortunately, these metals are not very ductile, in other words they are extremely brittle. The ideal candidate would possess the advantages of Tungsten Carbide in a more malleable form. Perhaps some sort of Chobham type of armor with layers of metal and ceramics. As a comparison, what is the X-ray density of deuterium ice? How much more ice would be required to equal the shielding of one of the refractory metals? Anybody else have any thoughts? Lee (o o) ------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo----- ---- Up the airy mountain, Down the rushy glen, We daren't go a-hunting For fear of little men; William Allingham, Ireland, 1850 From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Nov 9 13:37 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2782" "Sun" "9" "November" "1997" "22:36:23" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "62" "Re: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA26268 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:37:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA26246 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:37:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-009.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0xUf3f-001XkPC; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 22:38:15 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2781 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 22:36:23 +0100 Hi Lee, >I would like to start a discussion on a topic which I know very little >about. Good, then everybody must be able to make you wiser. (Oops ;) >Any ship we design that is capable of achieving substantial fractions of c >will be exposed to enormous amounts of radiation and material impacts. I >have seen several proposals for using frozen deuterium ice (fuel) >surrounding the ship and providing shielding from impacts. Of course, this >assumes that you are using hydrogen for fuel... Actually this deuterium ice may melt away quickly. Assuming 10 protons per cubic cm and a velocity of 0.3c, that means an inpact power of about 0.6 Watt per square cm. That makes 6000 Watt per square meter. At Earth orbit the Sun shines at a mere 1400 Watt per square meter! >I want to explore alternatives for the actual hull of the craft. What >metals are available, what sort of melting points, etc. I think of >particular interest would be the X-ray density, ductility, and hardness >numbers. As far as I know: If we shield for protons, then the density of the material doesn't matter much if the purpose is to stop the protons. The weight however does. So whether you uses 10cm thick Aluminium or 2.4 cm of Lead, both will be as much mass and both will shield almost equally well. The reason to use lead in earthly applications is usually because we're short of room. >Some of the most refractory metals with high melting points and high x-ray >density are borides and carbides of Tantalum, Tungsten, and Uranium. High melting points may indeed be handy if we're going much higher than 0.3c, then the temperatures can be similar to those of the Shuttle's shield when entering orbit. I wonder: The X-rays you are worrying about, are those the ones that "float" around in space already, or the ones that are generated when protons impact on the shield? >Unfortunately, these metals are not very ductile, in other words they are >extremely brittle. The ideal candidate would possess the advantages of >Tungsten Carbide in a more malleable form. Perhaps some sort of Chobham >type of armor with layers of metal and ceramics. > >As a comparison, what is the X-ray density of deuterium ice? How much more >ice would be required to equal the shielding of one of the refractory >metals? X-ray shielding is quite dependant on the energy of the x-rays. If the graph that I'm looking at doesn't lie, then it seems that above 1 MeV the kind of matter doesn't make a huge difference anymore. Again then all that counts is the weight. (At 100 MeV you only need 6 times more mass when you use air as shielding than when you use lead. Of course this difference is not insignificant, but surely small when you compare it to shielding against lower energy x-rays) Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Nov 9 17:50 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2202" "Sun" "9" "November" "1997" "17:24:10" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "67" "RE: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA04298 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:50:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@anesthesia.com [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA04221 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:50:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p33.gnt.com [204.49.68.238]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA15146; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 19:50:35 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 19:50:30 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCED48.BBDECBA0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2201 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Timothy van der Linden'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:24:10 -0600 On Sunday, November 09, 1997 3:36 PM, Timothy van der Linden [SMTP:TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl] wrote: > > Good, then everybody must be able to make you wiser. (Oops ;) > Reeaall funny... > Actually this deuterium ice may melt away quickly. Assuming 10 protons > per > cubic cm and a velocity of 0.3c, that means an inpact power of about 0.6 > Watt per square cm. That makes 6000 Watt per square meter. At Earth orbit > the Sun shines at a mere 1400 Watt per square meter! > In other words we can forget the giant iceball idea... > > As far as I know: If we shield for protons, then the density of the > material > doesn't matter much if the purpose is to stop the protons. The weight > however does. So whether you uses 10cm thick Aluminium or 2.4 cm of Lead, > both will be as much mass and both will shield almost equally well. > The reason to use lead in earthly applications is usually because we're > short of room. > Actually we use an alloy of Tungsten in most earthly applications...if I remember correctly, it is Tungsten, Chromium and something else. > High melting points may indeed be handy if we're going much higher than > 0.3c, then the temperatures can be similar to those of the Shuttle's > shield > when entering orbit. My thought exactly > > I wonder: The X-rays you are worrying about, are those the ones that > "float" > around in space already, or the ones that are generated when protons > impact > on the shield? Actually, both. > X-ray shielding is quite dependant on the energy of the x-rays. If the > graph > that I'm looking at doesn't lie, then it seems that above 1 MeV the kind > of > matter doesn't make a huge difference anymore. Again then all that counts > is > the weight. > (At 100 MeV you only need 6 times more mass when you use air as shielding > than when you use lead. Of course this difference is not insignificant, > but > surely small when you compare it to shielding against lower energy x-rays) Yes, but density per unit volume is significantly different for various metals, and obviously so for water, etc. The X-ray density number is the same thing as the density of the material I believe, since it is expressed in gm/cm^3. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 10 05:04 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3090" "Mon" "10" "November" "1997" "14:03:47" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "74" "RE: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA15373 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 05:04:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA15368 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 05:04:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-019.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0xUtX9-001XriC; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:05:39 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 3089 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:03:47 +0100 >> Good, then everybody must be able to make you wiser. (Oops ;) > >Reeaall funny... Well, believe it or not, but at first I had intended that phrase to make other less hesitant to reply. >In other words we can forget the giant iceball idea... Yes, unless, you can somehow radiate that energy at an other place. Eg. put a grid of superconducting material in the ice and connect it with a large radiator (that doesn't radiate towards the ice). This however seems to be not very practical (and certainly throws away the simplicity of an 'iceball'). >> As far as I know: If we shield for protons, then the density of the >> material >> doesn't matter much if the purpose is to stop the protons. The weight >> however does. So whether you uses 10cm thick Aluminium or 2.4 cm of Lead, >> both will be as much mass and both will shield almost equally well. >> The reason to use lead in earthly applications is usually because we're >> short of room. > >Actually we use an alloy of Tungsten in most earthly applications...if I >remember correctly, it is Tungsten, Chromium and something else. Oh, could be. It's density is about 1.7 times higher than lead. And its strength is much bigger. This seems to confirm that for Earthly applications we seek those that use least room. However, I now suddenly recall that for most Earthly applications we don't shield against protons but against low energy X-rays. Against these rays, dense metals indeed seem a lot better. >> High melting points may indeed be handy if we're going much higher than >> 0.3c, then the temperatures can be similar to those of the Shuttle's >> shield when entering orbit. > >My thought exactly Unless we use some cooling system. >> I wonder: The X-rays you are worrying about, are those the ones that >> "float" around in space already, or the ones that are generated when >> protons impact on the shield? > >Actually, both. Actually I don't know much about both.. >> X-ray shielding is quite dependant on the energy of the x-rays. If the >> graph that I'm looking at doesn't lie, then it seems that above 1 MeV >> the kind of matter doesn't make a huge difference anymore. Again then all >> that counts is the weight. >> (At 100 MeV you only need 6 times more mass when you use air as shielding >> than when you use lead. Of course this difference is not insignificant, >> but surely small when you compare it to shielding against lower energy >> x-rays) > >Yes, but density per unit volume is significantly different for various >metals, and obviously so for water, etc. The X-ray density number is the >same thing as the density of the material I believe, since it is expressed >in gm/cm^3. The density may be different, but since we're not short of room, that does not really matter. My theory and tables mainly talk about mu/rho [gm/cm^2] (mass attenuation coefficient) when considering X-ray shielding. For low X-ray energies the photo electric absorption by the K,L,M electronshells seems to be the dominating factor. It looks like we once again need tables to know what's best. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 10 08:34 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["349" "Mon" "10" "November" "1997" "14:36:36" "-0200" "Antonio C T Rocha" "arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br" nil "10" "Re: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA12156 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:34:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (srv1.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA12142 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:34:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from bsb.nutecnet.com.br ([200.252.29.65]) by srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (8.8.5/SCA-6.6) with ESMTP id RAA24982 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 17:33:08 GMT Message-ID: <34673814.FAE3F198@bsb.nutecnet.com.br> Organization: ... Just say no. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Antonio C T Rocha Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 348 From: Antonio C T Rocha Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:36:36 -0200 A few doubts regarding radiation shielding and fractional lightspeed. Would there be any considerable effect from doppler-shifting of impinging radiation - taking into consideration relativistic effects?. Ditto for particles? Would that make the ships hull look "harder" to the rad than to itself - due to mass increase? Antonio C T Rocha From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 10 12:52 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2066" "Mon" "10" "November" "1997" "13:37:28" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "47" "RE: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA07957 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:52:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@anesthesia.com [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA07924 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:52:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p13.gnt.com [204.49.68.218]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA05407; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:51:54 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:51:49 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCEDE8.2C9CCB40.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2065 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Antonio C T Rocha'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:37:28 -0600 On Monday, November 10, 1997 10:37 AM, Antonio C T Rocha [SMTP:arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br] wrote: > A few doubts regarding radiation shielding and fractional lightspeed. > Would there be any considerable effect from doppler-shifting of > impinging > radiation - taking into consideration relativistic effects?. > Ditto for particles? I don't think Doppler shift is the problem, it is total energy in the quanta rather than its frequency - a megajoule laser is more powerful than a milliwatt x-ray, period. This the problem with particulate matter though, a grain of sand impacting the ship at near c contains quite a bit of energy, we don't even want to think about hitting anything larger. As Timothy pointed out, dust alone is going to cause significant erosion and thermal gain, "streamlining" may begin to make sense again. It should be possible to at least deflect charged particles with some sort of magnetic field, but a lot of these particles are going to either be neutral or simply to massive to deflect in time so the hull has to be capable of absorbing quite a bit of impact for long durations. This means high melting points, high thermal transmissivity or a least high emissivity, extremely hard and yet ductile enough to remain "tough for several years of use. We almost need something as tough as the inside of a nuclear reactor for the hull! Another problem that Timothy started to get into is secondary radiation. We have to screen against alpha and beta particle radiation caused by gamma ray collision with our own shield. Probably need to consider a fuel tank forward design to keep as much of the mass in front of the crew as possible. Which brings us to deceleration, NOW the shields need to be at the BACK of the ship, not the front... > Would that make the ships hull look "harder" to the rad than to itself - > due to > mass increase? Umm, that is a relativistic mass increase, from the frame of reference of the ship there is no mass increase, or is there? Timothy, you want to help on this? Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 10 12:53 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["971" "Mon" "10" "November" "1997" "14:19:20" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "25" "RE: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA08529 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:53:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@anesthesia.com [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA08509 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:53:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p13.gnt.com [204.49.68.218]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA05418; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:52:00 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:51:56 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCEDE8.30ABEAE0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 970 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Timothy van der Linden'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:19:20 -0600 On Monday, November 10, 1997 7:04 AM, Timothy van der Linden [SMTP:TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl] wrote: > My theory and tables mainly talk about mu/rho [gm/cm^2] (mass attenuation > coefficient) when considering X-ray shielding. For low X-ray energies the > photo electric absorption by the K,L,M electronshells seems to be the > dominating factor. It looks like we once again need tables to know what's > best. > > > Timothy I don't have anything like the tables you are describing... I think the alloy of Tungsten was with chromium and iron. There is some promising new work in "intermetallics" which might yield even better long term performance. So far however, most of the intermetallic research has been with Aluminum for turbine blades with a sustained operating temperature around 300 C for only a few thousand hours of operational life. We need on the order of 500 - 900 C for tens of thousands of hours for hull materials and 2,000+ C for drives. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 10 13:40 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1540" "Mon" "10" "November" "1997" "19:42:34" "-0200" "Antonio C T Rocha" "arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br" nil "44" "Re: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA07771 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:40:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (srv1.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA07508 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:40:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from bsb.nutecnet.com.br (dl1236-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.236]) by srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (8.8.5/SCA-6.6) with ESMTP id WAA26330 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 22:39:06 GMT Message-ID: <34677FC9.8A3187E7@bsb.nutecnet.com.br> Organization: ... Just say no. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <01BCEDE8.30ABEAE0.lparker@cacaphony.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Antonio C T Rocha Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1539 From: Antonio C T Rocha Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: Re: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 19:42:34 -0200 This is more or less what I was afraid of. I imagine the percieved opacity of the shield depending on the frequency of impinging radiation. In other words, at relativistic speeds, will infrared be seen as x-rays (and x-rays as gamma... and so on) ? If this turns out to be so, there might turn out to be a lot more hard radiation to be faced. And hard radiation can be more penetrating, hence difficult to keep out. Infrared, for example, has a hard time going through glass, but light has no problem at all. L. Parker wrote: > On Monday, November 10, 1997 7:04 AM, Timothy van der Linden > [SMTP:TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl] wrote: > > > My theory and tables mainly talk about mu/rho [gm/cm^2] (mass attenuation > > coefficient) when considering X-ray shielding. For low X-ray energies the > > photo electric absorption by the K,L,M electronshells seems to be the > > dominating factor. It looks like we once again need tables to know what's > > best. > > > > > > Timothy > > I don't have anything like the tables you are describing... > > I think the alloy of Tungsten was with chromium and iron. There is some > promising new work in "intermetallics" which might yield even better long > term performance. So far however, most of the intermetallic research has > been with Aluminum for turbine blades with a sustained operating > temperature around 300 C for only a few thousand hours of operational life. > We need on the order of 500 - 900 C for tens of thousands of hours for hull > materials and 2,000+ C for drives. > > Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 10 15:34 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1181" "Tue" "11" "November" "1997" "00:33:25" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "26" "RE: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA21677 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:34:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA21607 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:34:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-008.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0xV3MW-001W4ZC; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:35:20 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1180 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:33:25 +0100 Hi Lee, >I don't have anything like the tables you are describing... I've only few, not enough to make any reasonable choice. An university library or radiation lab likely would have a book containing the right tables and graphs. One book of mine mentions the "Radiological Health Handbook". >I think the alloy of Tungsten was with chromium and iron. There is some >promising new work in "intermetallics" which might yield even better long >term performance. So far however, most of the intermetallic research has >been with Aluminum for turbine blades with a sustained operating >temperature around 300 C for only a few thousand hours of operational life. >We need on the order of 500 - 900 C for tens of thousands of hours for hull >materials and 2,000+ C for drives. The particles we will be encountering will have a completely different velocity from those encountered by a turbine blade. I doubt if any comparison can be made. The particles the spaceship will encounter are hopefully only protons, these will not directly erode the material. They mainly will ionize some atoms, and my guess is that these ions will recapture some electrons after a while. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 10 15:34 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1947" "Tue" "11" "November" "1997" "00:33:22" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "42" "starship-design: Doppler trouble?" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA22020 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:34:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA21947 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:34:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-008.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0xV3MT-001W2yC; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:35:17 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1946 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Doppler trouble? Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:33:22 +0100 Hi Antonio, >A few doubts regarding radiation shielding and fractional lightspeed. >Would there be any considerable effect from doppler-shifting of impinging >radiation - taking into consideration relativistic effects?. If we're talking about a carry-the-fuel-with-us design, then the maximum cruise velocity is less than 0.3c (unless you want to carry thousants or million times more fuel then ship). For such "low" velocities the doppler shift is so small that blue still looks blue, except that it might look just a little bit greener. Even for high velocities like 0.9c you don't have to worry a lot. Only beyond 0.99c things may become interesting. But in space there are X-rays, on the Earth's we aren't bothered by these since the atmosphere absorpts most of it. In space we have to make our own shielding against it. >Ditto for particles? Particles are more or less floating in space with no huge velocities relative to the frame where the Sun is at rest. However if we're going to meet them at 0.3c these particles will look similar to the particles that are radiated from radioactive material. In fact if we go faster than 0.3c the radiation will be more energetic than that of normal radiactive material. >Would that make the ships hull look "harder" to the rad than to itself - due >to mass increase? Your "harder" relates only to the frame of the particle. It sees a big "wall" coming at it. It observes the wall being thinner due to length contraction. The number of atoms in the shield stays the same. So the particle observes the shield as having the same number of atoms in a smaller volume which is equivalent to the shield having a bigger density. Don't make the mistake to using this denser/harder in the ship's frame. It likely would make you conclude that you can make the shield thinner, which isn't true. Actually from the ship's frame, the particles look harder. (Therefore we should not use E=0.5mv^2) Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 10 15:50 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6281" "Mon" "10" "November" "1997" "15:50:39" "-0800" "Ken Wharton" "wharton@physics.ucla.edu" nil "140" "RE: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA02727 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:50:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from physics.ucla.edu (physics.ucla.edu [128.97.23.13]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA02613 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:50:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from watt by physics.ucla.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA09447; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:50:40 -0800 Received: by watt (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA11109; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:50:39 -0800 Message-Id: <199711102350.PAA11109@watt> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 6280 From: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:50:39 -0800 First of all, here's a web site with a lot of x-ray data. Transmissions, flourescence yields, etc. http://www.chem.pwf.cam.ac.uk/~slms100/bkxrays.htm >It should be possible to at least deflect charged particles with some sort >of magnetic field, but a lot of these particles are going to either be >neutral or simply to massive to deflect in time so the hull has to be >capable of absorbing quite a bit of impact for long durations. This means >high melting points, high thermal transmissivity or a least high >emissivity, extremely hard and yet ductile enough to remain "tough for >several years of use. There actually won't be much neutral matter, I don't think; interstellar space is a pretty good plasma. But true, there might be some micrometeorites with only a few electrons missing and a huge mass/charge ratio. Those will be a problem, and they'll make lots of radiation and heat when they hit. >We almost need something as tough as the inside of a nuclear reactor for >the hull! Another problem that Timothy started to get into is secondary >radiation. We have to screen against alpha and beta particle radiation >caused by gamma ray collision with our own shield. Probably need to >consider a fuel tank forward design to keep as much of the mass in front of >the crew as possible. This is very important, and I think the way to minimize it is to have the highest-Z materials on the outside, getting progressively smaller Z as you go in. More in a sec. >Which brings us to deceleration, NOW the shields need to be at the BACK of >the ship, not the front... This is especially problematic when you consider that you need holes in the back for the engines to spew out propellant. How could we conceviably have shielding there?? >> My theory and tables mainly talk about mu/rho [gm/cm^2] (mass attenuation >> coefficient) when considering X-ray shielding. For low X-ray energies the >> photo electric absorption by the K,L,M electronshells seems to be the >> dominating factor. It looks like we once again need tables to know what's >> best. >> >> >> Timothy > >I don't have anything like the tables you are describing... g/cm^2 is areal density; the number of atoms an xray will encounter is proportional to the density (g/cm^3) times the thickness of the material (cm). Multiply these and you get g/cm^2; that is the important paramter here. So no matter what you make the shielding out of, to have the same stopping power it will weigh the same no matter what material you use. Tungsten is very dense, so the shielding wouldn't have to be as thick, but it weighs just as much as a thicker deuterium shield with the same g/cm^2. Knowing the surface area of the shield, we can therefore calculate the total mass of the shield needed to stop a given energy xray. But once you "stop" an xray, the energy doesn't just disappear. It changes form. We have to stop all the secondary radiation as well... Okay - so how do the xrays dissapate their energy? (I'm writing this into my thesis right now, so I've been learning about it lately) Photo- electric absorption is indeed dominant at low energies. K-shell ionization is the one to worry about; L and M energies are going to be comparitively low. Even the electron that is kicked out by photo ionization will have a small stopping distance compared to the K-alpha xrays. Alpha particles will be even less of a concern. The energies of the secondary k-alpha xrays are determined by the Z of the atom; from 50eV in Li to 100KeV in Uranium. That's why you want to have the higher-Z materials on the outside. If you dump lots of energy into k- alphas in an outer Tungsten layer, for example, you can attentuate the secondary 60KeV xrays in further lower-Z layers without worrying about creating more high energy xrays. If the last part of the shield is Deuterium ice, the worst secondary radiation will be the 500eV k-alpha line from oxygen, which isn't horrible. Bottom line, you want to turn the high energy xrays into as many low- energy xrays as possible. Another problem is that ionization cross-sections start dropping once the xray gets much more energetic than the k-alpha energy. You start dumping energy into compton scattering, in which the atom only partially absorbs the x-ray, as well as electron-postiron pair-production over 1.5MeV. The strong 500KeV gamma line that might result from positron annihilation could be a problem, but I suppose that's still better than the orginal MeV-pluse xrays. At very high x-ray energies (GeV?) you might have to worry about nuclear distentigration, fission and all that. Unfortunately, you want that to happen in low-Z elements to limit the released energy. Below Nickel, I think, fission products have more energy than their parent. So if we start doing Tungsten fission on the outer hull, that will merely add to the total amount of energy that we need to shield. So maybe we want a low-Z outer layer, then the high-Z layer, and then progressively smaller Z's toward the inside. Unless we think there won't be many GeV xrays. >I think the alloy of Tungsten was with chromium and iron. There is some >promising new work in "intermetallics" which might yield even better long >term performance. So far however, most of the intermetallic research has >been with Aluminum for turbine blades with a sustained operating >temperature around 300 C for only a few thousand hours of operational life. >We need on the order of 500 - 900 C for tens of thousands of hours for hull >materials and 2,000+ C for drives. Yes; material will determine peak temperature, so that's important too. Most of the impact energy might go into temperature rather than x-rays. The outer material will obviously be the most important, so the most thought should go into that. And then there's always cost... As for doppler shift, I don't think our final design is going to go fast enough to matter. But if we are going that fast, I recommend picking a destination that doesn't involve travelling in the galactic plane. That's where most of the interstellar x-rays come from, so if we were travelling at right angles to the plane of the Milky Way, there wouldn't be much of an upshift. Ken From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 10 17:53 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["496" "Mon" "10" "November" "1997" "19:51:58" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "16" "RE: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA11301 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 17:53:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@anesthesia.com [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA11287 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 17:53:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p13.gnt.com [204.49.68.218]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA02726; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 19:52:48 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 19:52:28 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCEE12.2CE5A200.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 495 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Ken Wharton'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 19:51:58 -0600 On Monday, November 10, 1997 5:51 PM, Ken Wharton [SMTP:wharton@physics.ucla.edu] wrote: > > First of all, here's a web site with a lot of x-ray data. Hey, thanks, that was pretty good! Just what is your thesis anyway? As far as shielding the back from the hole left by the engine(s), I think we are going to have to put two shields on the ship or perhaps we can spin the habitable section's shield between the engine and the habitat? This may turn out to be too complicated though. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Nov 11 15:51 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2463" "Wed" "12" "November" "1997" "00:50:43" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "51" "RE: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA13310 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:51:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA13236 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:51:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-014.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0xVQ6o-001WBaC; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:52:38 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2462 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:50:43 +0100 Hi Ken, You wrote: >>Which brings us to deceleration, NOW the shields need to be at the BACK >>of the ship, not the front... > >This is especially problematic when you consider that you need holes in >the back for the engines to spew out propellant. How could we >conceviably have shielding there?? One could wonder if shielding is necessary for an engine that spews out a wall of particles which have velocities of say 25% of the cruise velocity. The engine would probably have enough shielding against its own destuctive forces, thus also against the few particles that get through "the wall of fire". >... Even the electron that is kicked out by photo ionization >will have a small stopping distance compared to the K-alpha xrays. >Alpha particles will be even less of a concern. The energies of >the secondary k-alpha xrays are determined by the Z of the atom; from >50eV in Li to 100KeV in Uranium. That's why you want to have the >higher-Z materials on the outside. If you dump lots of energy into k- >alphas in an outer Tungsten layer, for example, you can attentuate the >secondary 60KeV xrays in further lower-Z layers without worrying about >creating more high energy xrays. If the last part of the shield is >Deuterium ice, the worst secondary radiation will be the 500eV k-alpha >line from oxygen, which isn't horrible. Does one really need low Z-materials on the inside? High Z-atoms do have other (lower) electron shells. So in theory high Z-materials should do absorb both high and lower energy X-rays. >Another problem is that ionization cross-sections start dropping once >the xray gets much more energetic than the k-alpha energy. You start >dumping energy into compton scattering, in which the atom only partially >absorbs the x-ray, as well as electron-postiron pair-production over >1.5MeV. The strong 500KeV gamma line that might result from positron >annihilation could be a problem, but I suppose that's still better than >the orginal MeV-pluse xrays. I think you mean the strong 1000 KeV gamma line (512+512=~1000) ;) But indeed every decrease in energy of the gamma-rays makes it easier to stop them further on. Do you know how if proton radiation will increase the amount of high energy gamma rays? (A proton at 0.3c has an energy of 45MeV.) While a proton likely doesn't collide with an big (positive) atom core, it may radiate Bremsstrahlung when it is path is bent due to the Coulomb force. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Nov 11 17:07 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil t nil nil] ["1200" "Tue" "11" "November" "1997" "18:17:17" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "35" "starship-design: NEEP 602 Lecture #16" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA26941 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:07:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@anesthesia.com [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA26897 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:07:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p27.gnt.com [204.49.68.232]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA03622 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:07:42 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:07:35 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCEED5.11FEFEA0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BCEED5.128E6D60" Content-Length: 1199 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: NEEP 602 Lecture #16 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 18:17:17 -0600 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCEED5.128E6D60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I found a page at the University of Wisconsin that has an interesting lecture about Near Earth Asteroids. I think everyone here is familiar with my position on the importance of commercializing space and the heck with planetary surfaces... This paper explains just exactly what is out there waiting to be harvested. Not only is it a matter of providing raw materials for space borne industry, you can get rich out there... http://elvis.neep.wisc.edu/~neep602/lecture16.html The best part is almost to the end of the document where the lecturer covers the amount of precious metals fond in a typical metallic asteroid. Sounds like incentive to me. Now if I could just find some way of getting this mining boat into space... Lee ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCEED5.128E6D60 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="NEEP 602 Lecture #16.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 W0ludGVybmV0U2hvcnRjdXRdDQpVUkw9aHR0cDovL2VsdmlzLm5lZXAud2lzYy5lZHUvfm5lZXA2 MDIvbGVjdHVyZTE2Lmh0bWwNCk1vZGlmaWVkPUMwNTkxQjQ2RkZFRUJDMDEyNA0K ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCEED5.128E6D60-- From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Nov 11 21:05 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2207" "Wed" "12" "November" "1997" "00:04:50" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "66" "Re: Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA07564 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 21:05:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin58.mail.aol.com (mrin58.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.168]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA07537 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 21:05:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin58.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id AAA04658; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:04:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971112000449_1313582448@mrin58.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2206 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stk@sunherald.infi.net cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: It's a bad, bad world out there Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:04:50 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/4/97 2:52:09 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net wrote: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> >> On the contrary, the gov always does what we ask. Pity we ask such shallow >> contradictory things. > >The government does what it wants. Why do you suppose it is illegal to >have a copy of the constitution hanging in your office? I'm telling you, >the government is corrupt. Wait ~30 years. See how many of our rights >are taken away. Unfortunately, most new generations of people (currently >children) do not care if our rights are taken away. Its not illegal. The gov is corrupt. We want it that way. Most politicians brag about their most blatant multi-billion dollar bribes, and our reelected because of them. (hint: they cut the voters in.) >> They can't even explain that NASA is cheap! No it boils down to federal >> money (millions probably) being spent on a stupid boondoggle like alien >> hunting. Why do you think things like this kept Sen. Proxmire in office for >> so long? > >Well, that is possible. It's also possible that there was a bit of >'control'. No control, he was extreamly popular for these and other possitions. >> With a bit of spin control it sound like your starving children to >> let scientists doing the increadibly stupid. > >Fact: There is enough food in the world to feed EVERY HUMAN BEING IN THE >WORLD. I don't like seeing people starve, but there's nothing I can do >about it. Ask your wondrous government why they don't feed those people. Because they don't want top go to war over it. Most all recent major world famines are military operations. (Burning crops and shooting up food trucks is much easier then fighting rebels.) >As far as people that are perfectly able to work and have a good life >but are too lazy to: let them starve. Why should we have to pay for >them? Use that money for SETI/NASA. > >> >> Truth means little in Washington. > >Washington *makes* the truth. No, it trys, but that doesn't work well. It just learns to tell people what they want to hear. People seldom critically review things they like the sound of, and often reward those who tell them the 'good news'. >Just my two cents >Kyle Mcallister Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Nov 11 21:05 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1991" "Wed" "12" "November" "1997" "00:04:59" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "45" "Re: starship-design: Space Money" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA07612 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 21:05:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin79.mail.aol.com (mrin79.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.189]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA07597 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 21:05:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin79.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id AAA18803; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:04:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971112000453_-556910224@mrin79> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1990 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: david@actionworld.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Space Money Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:04:59 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/4/97 9:06:05 AM, david@actionworld.com wrote: > >So far the -best- NASA has ever been funded was when it was 4.4% of the >federal budget, in 1966. Since that time, the worst was when it was >0.7% in 1986. The projections for the next few years show NASA's budget >going back down to 0.7% again. > >Imagine what NASA could do with double its budget (which would still >only be 1.6% of the federal budget)! > >The problem is, of course, that most people really have no idea how much >we spend on space. When someone in the government wants to win points >with the public by cutting the budget, space programs make an easy >target: you just say "we're spending millions on this stuff which has no >direct immediate benefit to you" and you've got it made! What they >never tell anyone is how many OTHER programs out there are getting even >more money for even less immediate value to the public. I think if they >quoted percentages rather than actual dollar amounts, the space program >would be seen in a much better light by the public. > >David True the public has little if any understanding of the fraction of the budget NASA is. On the other hand I think they are correct that NASA generally wastes most of its budget, often for political reasons, but still wastes. Think about it. A space shuttle costs about a billion dollars a bird to buy, and about the same per flight to operate. The yearly shuttle flight expences would buy most of an aircraft carrier a year. The space station construction budget is expected to run over 40 billion. NASA likes to talk about spin-offs, but the B-2 bomber program had far more, for far less money. Regratably I think its the public, not us space advocates, who correctly evaluate the costs of space. I.E. we're geting ripped off by NASA. Kelly P.S. For new guys who don't know, I was in the Space Shuttle, station, and NASA headquarters contracts for about 14 years. So I know something about what I speak. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Nov 12 07:18 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2731" "Wed" "12" "November" "1997" "10:19:17" "-0500" "jimaclem@juno.com" "jimaclem@juno.com" nil "79" "Re: starship-design: Space Money" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA29367 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:18:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from x18.boston.juno.com (x18.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.29]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA29358 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:18:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jimaclem@juno.com) by x18.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KXQ19727; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 10:15:46 EST Message-ID: <19971112.101917.3270.0.jimaclem@juno.com> References: <971112000453_-556910224@mrin79> X-Mailer: Juno 1.38 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2,7-77 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: jimaclem@juno.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2730 From: jimaclem@juno.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Space Money Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 10:19:17 -0500 Kelly is absolutely correct, unfortunately. Also, NASA, and a lot of other government organizations, are trapped in the Design the Hell out of It, And It'll Work syndrome. The simple fact of the matter is that you build three prototypes, test them till two are destroyed, use the data to design the next prototype, and give the third to the Smithsonian. As a mechanical engineer, I thing it was absolutely insane to build a vehicle (or anything else) and put it on line after only a couple of test flights. Jim A. Clem, B.S.E. jimaclem@juno.com www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/3403 On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:04:59 -0500 (EST) KellySt@aol.com writes: > >In a message dated 11/4/97 9:06:05 AM, david@actionworld.com wrote: > >> >>So far the -best- NASA has ever been funded was when it was 4.4% of >the >>federal budget, in 1966. Since that time, the worst was when it was >>0.7% in 1986. The projections for the next few years show NASA's >budget >>going back down to 0.7% again. >> >>Imagine what NASA could do with double its budget (which would still >>only be 1.6% of the federal budget)! >> >>The problem is, of course, that most people really have no idea how >much >>we spend on space. When someone in the government wants to win >points >>with the public by cutting the budget, space programs make an easy >>target: you just say "we're spending millions on this stuff which has >no >>direct immediate benefit to you" and you've got it made! What they >>never tell anyone is how many OTHER programs out there are getting >even >>more money for even less immediate value to the public. I think if >they >>quoted percentages rather than actual dollar amounts, the space >program >>would be seen in a much better light by the public. >> >>David > >True the public has little if any understanding of the fraction of the >budget >NASA is. On the other hand I think they are correct that NASA >generally >wastes most of its budget, often for political reasons, but still >wastes. > >Think about it. A space shuttle costs about a billion dollars a bird >to buy, >and about the same per flight to operate. The yearly shuttle flight >expences >would buy most of an aircraft carrier a year. The space station >construction >budget is expected to run over 40 billion. NASA likes to talk about >spin-offs, but the B-2 bomber program had far more, for far less >money. > >Regratably I think its the public, not us space advocates, who >correctly >evaluate the costs of space. I.E. we're geting ripped off by NASA. > >Kelly > >P.S. >For new guys who don't know, I was in the Space Shuttle, station, and >NASA >headquarters contracts for about 14 years. So I know something about >what I >speak. > > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Nov 12 07:24 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1322" "Wed" "12" "November" "1997" "10:20:04" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "30" "RE: starship-design: Space Money" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA00567 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:24:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA00542 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:24:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 10:20:06 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 1321 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Space Money Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 10:20:04 -0500 > ---------- > From: KellySt@aol.com[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] > > Think about it. A space shuttle costs about a billion dollars a bird > to buy, > and about the same per flight to operate. The yearly shuttle flight > expences > NASA's budget for the shuttle program averages around 3 billion a year for both operations and safety and performance upgrades. Assuming six flights a year, this averages to half a billion a flight. Now, this is still an awful lot of money - but's it's not a billion. Actually, in 1996 there were eight flights, making the cost-per-flight $375,000,000. Although it usually never carries this much, the shuttle can carry up to around 45,000 lbs (i.e. STS-70, which launched the last TDRS). If we maxed out each shuttle flight, we'd get around $8,333 per pound. That's a lot of money. The average flight carries around half that weight, doubling the cost. Ref.: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeb/budget/shuttle4.html (LOTS of cool information) ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 "The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Nov 12 21:01 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["380" "Thu" "13" "November" "1997" "00:00:49" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "14" "Re: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA25181 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:01:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin44.mail.aol.com (mrin44.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.154]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA25174 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:01:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin44.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id AAA24390; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:00:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971113000048_1771063677@mrin44.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 379 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:00:49 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/9/97 9:02:22 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >> High melting points may indeed be handy if we're going much higher than >> 0.3c, then the temperatures can be similar to those of the Shuttle's >> shield >> when entering orbit. Does this mean my litium-6 sail and fuel plug will have a heating problem? Cruise speed was supposed to be over .4 c. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Nov 12 21:01 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1615" "Thu" "13" "November" "1997" "00:00:52" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "34" "Re: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA25235 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:01:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin46.mail.aol.com (mrin46.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.156]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA25204 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:01:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin46.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id AAA11262; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:00:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971113000052_1879172919@mrin46.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1614 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:00:52 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/11/97 2:52:33 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >On Monday, November 10, 1997 10:37 AM, Antonio C T Rocha >[SMTP:arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br] wrote: >> A few doubts regarding radiation shielding and fractional lightspeed. >> Would there be any considerable effect from doppler-shifting of >> impinging >> radiation - taking into consideration relativistic effects?. >> Ditto for particles? > >I don't think Doppler shift is the problem, it is total energy in the >quanta rather than its frequency - a megajoule laser is more powerful than >a milliwatt x-ray, period. This the problem with particulate matter though, >a grain of sand impacting the ship at near c contains quite a bit of >energy, we don't even want to think about hitting anything larger. As >Timothy pointed out, dust alone is going to cause significant erosion and >thermal gain, "streamlining" may begin to make sense again. > >It should be possible to at least deflect charged particles with some sort >of magnetic field, but a lot of these particles are going to either be >neutral or simply to massive to deflect in time so the hull has to be >capable of absorbing quite a bit of impact for long durations. This means >high melting points, high thermal transmissivity or a least high >emissivity, extremely hard and yet ductile enough to remain "tough for >several years of use. Oh, did I mention the dust shield idea? You dump a cloud of fine dust or gas ahead of you. The debres slams into it and vaporizes, or at least ionizes. The resulting plasma is fairly easy to steer magnetically. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Nov 12 21:01 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["526" "Thu" "13" "November" "1997" "00:00:56" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "18" "Re: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA25250 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:01:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin51.mail.aol.com (mrin51.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.161]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA25242 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:01:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin51.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id AAA14249; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:00:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971113000054_277332791@mrin51.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 525 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: wharton@physics.ucla.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:00:56 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/11/97 3:51:20 AM, wharton@physics.ucla.edu wrote: >>Which brings us to deceleration, NOW the shields need to be at the BACK >of >>the ship, not the front... > >This is especially problematic when you consider that you need holes in >the back for the engines to spew out propellant. How could we >conceviably have shielding there?? Use the fuel as a shield, and move the engines in frount of the fuel ship stack just before the decel burn. The engines exaust should clear the way anyway. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Nov 12 21:02 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["699" "Thu" "13" "November" "1997" "00:01:43" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "21" "starship-design: Re: regarding fuel expenditures" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA25518 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:02:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin52.mail.aol.com (mrin52.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.162]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA25488 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:02:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin52.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id AAA13494; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:01:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971113000057_475652280@mrin52.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 698 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: hal@buffnet.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: regarding fuel expenditures Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:01:43 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/10/97 1:10:00 PM, you wrote: >Hello Kelly Stark, > One question for you. Suppose you use a modified Ramjet fuel scoop >concept where instead of relying solely upon it, rely on it to refuel >the onboard tanks. In other words, instead of a steady accelleration, >why not figure on spurts of accelleration and deceleration? > > Hal Sorry for the delay, been busy. The problem with the ram scoops is that you are slowed down more by the drag, then any interstellar fuel scooped up could possibly make up for. You would save fuel buy not needing to accelerate the whole fuel load at once, but the drag and weight gain from the scoop would blow the advantage. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Nov 13 03:27 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["970" "Thu" "13" "November" "1997" "12:25:38" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "26" "starship-design: Re: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA01792 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 03:27:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA01783 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 03:27:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-015.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #12) id m0xVxQr-001XXVC; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 12:27:33 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 969 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Hull Materials Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 12:25:38 +0100 Hi Kelly, >>> High melting points may indeed be handy if we're going much higher than >>> 0.3c, then the temperatures can be similar to those of the Shuttle's >>> shield when entering orbit. > >Does this mean my litium-6 sail and fuel plug will have a heating problem? > Cruise speed was supposed to be over .4 c. Yes, I think it will have a problem. The number (6000Watt/m^2) I mentioned assumes that all radiation is transferred into heat. To do that, a certain amount of stopping power is necessary. That is, the shield should be thick enough. It seems that lower energy protons will loose their energy rather fast, actually faster than one would realize: A 10MeV proton will come to a complete "standstill" after only 60 micrometers of aluminium. My table/formula is only valid upto 10MeV protons, so I can't be sure about what happens when one encounters a 80MeV proton (the energy of a proton at 0.4c), but I assume it will not lessen the problem. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Nov 13 06:16 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["541" "Thu" "13" "November" "1997" "07:51:14" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "19" "RE: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA02285 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:16:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@anesthesia.com [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA02277 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:16:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p25.gnt.com [204.49.68.230]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA21309; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:16:24 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:16:21 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCF00C.6D013240.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 540 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'KellySt@aol.com'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 07:51:14 -0600 On Wednesday, November 12, 1997 11:01 PM, KellySt@aol.com [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: > Oh, did I mention the dust shield idea? You dump a cloud of fine dust or > gas > ahead of you. The debres slams into it and vaporizes, or at least > ionizes. > The resulting plasma is fairly easy to steer magnetically. > > Kelly Except how do we get the dust cloud to acclerate along with the ship? I suppose some sort of mhd field surrounding the ship would not only deflect particles but could be made to trap and hold some as well. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Nov 13 06:16 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1487" "Thu" "13" "November" "1997" "08:01:02" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "39" "RE: starship-design: Re: regarding fuel expenditures" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA02317 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:16:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@anesthesia.com [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA02305 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:16:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p25.gnt.com [204.49.68.230]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA21342; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:16:39 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:16:36 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCF00C.75735DE0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1486 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'KellySt@aol.com'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: regarding fuel expenditures Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:01:02 -0600 On Wednesday, November 12, 1997 11:02 PM, KellySt@aol.com [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: > > In a message dated 11/10/97 1:10:00 PM, you wrote: > > >Hello Kelly Stark, > > One question for you. Suppose you use a modified Ramjet fuel scoop > >concept where instead of relying solely upon it, rely on it to refuel > >the onboard tanks. In other words, instead of a steady accelleration, > >why not figure on spurts of accelleration and deceleration? > > > > Hal > > > Sorry for the delay, been busy. > > The problem with the ram scoops is that you are slowed down more by the > drag, > then any interstellar fuel scooped up could possibly make up for. You > would > save fuel buy not needing to accelerate the whole fuel load at once, but > the > drag and weight gain from the scoop would blow the advantage. > > Kelly It seems to me that the scoop which is travelling at some arbitrary velocity relative to the matter it is scooping will have to slow the matter down in order to store it in a tank, which would impart velocity to the ship in the form of deceleration. The only reason a ram scoop is feasible at all is that it doesn't slow the material down relative to the ship, it actually accelerates it to an even higher velocity as it exits the drive out the back of the ship. The only "drag" is caused by any velocity component imparted by the inevitable steering into the center of the scoop. This isn't true if you want to capture and store the material. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Nov 13 06:16 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["515" "Thu" "13" "November" "1997" "07:51:42" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "17" "RE: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA02340 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:16:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@anesthesia.com [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA02326 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:16:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p25.gnt.com [204.49.68.230]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA21317; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:16:29 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:16:26 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCF00C.6FD16940.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 514 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'KellySt@aol.com'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 07:51:42 -0600 On Wednesday, November 12, 1997 11:01 PM, KellySt@aol.com [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: > Does this mean my litium-6 sail and fuel plug will have a heating problem? > > Cruise speed was supposed to be over .4 c. > > Kelly No, heating from interstellar impacts doesn't become severe until you reach better than .9c. Besides, the material has to stop or at least slow down the impacting object in order to absorb heat from it. Anything hitting a lithium sail will go through it like tissue paper... :-) Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Nov 13 06:16 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1472" "Thu" "13" "November" "1997" "08:05:55" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "39" "RE: starship-design: Re: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA02349 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:16:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@anesthesia.com [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA02331 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:16:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p25.gnt.com [204.49.68.230]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA21349; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:16:45 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:16:41 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCF00C.78F49560.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1471 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Timothy van der Linden'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Hull Materials Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:05:55 -0600 On Thursday, November 13, 1997 5:26 AM, Timothy van der Linden [SMTP:TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl] wrote: > Hi Kelly, > > >>> High melting points may indeed be handy if we're going much higher > >>> than > >>> 0.3c, then the temperatures can be similar to those of the Shuttle's > >>> shield when entering orbit. > > > >Does this mean my litium-6 sail and fuel plug will have a heating > >problem? > > Cruise speed was supposed to be over .4 c. > > Yes, I think it will have a problem. > > The number (6000Watt/m^2) I mentioned assumes that all radiation is > transferred into heat. To do that, a certain amount of stopping power is > necessary. That is, the shield should be thick enough. > It seems that lower energy protons will loose their energy rather fast, > actually faster than one would realize: A 10MeV proton will come to a > complete "standstill" after only 60 micrometers of aluminium. > My table/formula is only valid upto 10MeV protons, so I can't be sure > about > what happens when one encounters a 80MeV proton (the energy of a proton > at > 0.4c), but I assume it will not lessen the problem. > > Timothy > I don't remember the specifics on Kelly's sail, but most proposals for solar/laser/microwave sails are only 100 micrometers thick at best. I still think most protons, etc. will just blow right through the sail without even impacting much of anything, especially if it isn't a solid sail, and there is no reason why it should be solid. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Nov 13 06:16 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["404" "Thu" "13" "November" "1997" "07:53:45" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "17" "RE: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA02364 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:16:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@anesthesia.com [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA02348 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:16:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p25.gnt.com [204.49.68.230]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA21332; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:16:34 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:16:31 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCF00C.72D58180.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 403 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'KellySt@aol.com'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 07:53:45 -0600 On Wednesday, November 12, 1997 11:01 PM, KellySt@aol.com [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: > > Use the fuel as a shield, and move the engines in frount of the fuel ship > stack just before the decel burn. The engines exaust should clear the > way > anyway. > > Kelly I would think that the exhaust would do a good job on particulate matter, but I am not sure it would deflect or stop radiation. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Nov 14 03:26 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1418" "Fri" "14" "November" "1997" "12:25:20" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "36" "starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA20446 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 03:26:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA20438 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 03:26:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-007.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xWJu8-001YRhC; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:27:16 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1417 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:25:20 +0100 Hi Lee, >I don't remember the specifics on Kelly's sail, but most proposals for >solar/laser/microwave sails are only 100 micrometers thick at best. I still >think most protons, etc. will just blow right through the sail without even >impacting much of anything, especially if it isn't a solid sail, and there >is no reason why it should be solid. With not solid, you mean meshlike? That indeed would decrease the problem significantly. Protons, unlike photons can/will loose their energy partially when they encounter matter. If the formula I use is valid and my calculations are right then a proton will loose 7.5MeV in a solid lithium layer of 100 micrometer. Let me do some calculus to estimate the equilibrium temperature of the sail. 10 protons per cubic cm, sail velocity 1.2E10 cm/s Number of protons per square cm per second: 1.2E11 Number of protons per square meter per second: 1.2E15 Power per square meter: 1.2E15*7.5E6*1.6E-19=1440 Watt/m^2 Sail has 2 sides to radiate the energy away, so that makes 720 Watt/m^2 That gives an equilibrium temperature of 335 Kelvin or 62 Celcius. (Litium melts at 180 Celcius.) A reverse calculation tells me that a 600 micron thick solid litium shield will melt assuming 10 protons per cubic cm at 0.4c. So indeed the problem may be less than I at first thought. Let's just hope that this number of 10 protons per cubic cm is a maximum. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Nov 14 07:32 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["457" "Fri" "14" "November" "1997" "09:19:10" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "13" "RE: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA12411 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 07:32:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@anesthesia.com [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA12391 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 07:32:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p44.gnt.com [204.49.68.249]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA10842; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:32:03 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:32:00 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCF0E0.28685D00.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 456 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Timothy van der Linden'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:19:10 -0600 Timothy, Why was the sail made of lithium? There are plenty of choices that have much better tensile strength, high reflectivity, and high emissivity. Calcium metal for instance, it is as easy to work as copper, almost as light as lithium and much stronger than lithium. It is also a better electrical conductor than copper which may turn out to be useful. There are lots of alloys that will also provide superior characteristics than lithium. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Nov 14 14:42 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1939" "Fri" "14" "November" "1997" "17:41:27" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "50" "Re: RE: starship-design: Space Money" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA10908 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:42:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin45.mail.aol.com (mrin45.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.155]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA10843 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:41:57 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin45.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA11856; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:41:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971114174126_902367455@mrin45.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1938 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: david@actionworld.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Space Money Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:41:27 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/13/97 2:09:31 AM, david@actionworld.com wrote: >> ---------- >> From: KellySt@aol.com[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] >> >> Think about it. A space shuttle costs about a billion dollars a bird >> to buy, >> and about the same per flight to operate. The yearly shuttle flight >> expences >> >NASA's budget for the shuttle program averages around 3 billion a year >for both operations and safety and performance upgrades. Assuming six >flights a year, this averages to half a billion a flight. Now, this is >still an awful lot of money - but's it's not a billion. Actually, in >1996 there were eight flights, making the cost-per-flight $375,000,000. NASA uses some budget tricks to hide the expenses. I.E. Shuttle budget only shows the direct cost to service the shuttle. It doesn't include the cost to matain the facilities around the country (KSc, JSC, HQ, etc) that are only used to service the shuttle, or the cost of the missions the shuttle flies. At NASA HQ (and the GAO) they estrimated as much as 2.3rds of NASA budget went to shuttle support. Goldin told the department I was in (office of space access tech) that if they couldn't develope a cheaper system shuttle would consume NASA, and the agency would be forced to shut down all manned opps. >Although it usually never carries this much, the shuttle can carry up to >around 45,000 lbs (i.e. STS-70, which launched the last TDRS). If we >maxed out each shuttle flight, we'd get around $8,333 per pound. That's >a lot of money. The average flight carries around half that weight, >doubling the cost. GAO estimates were a fully loaded shuttle could lift cargo at about $10,000 - $20,000 a pound. Oh, and not this ignores the spent costs to develop the system. >Ref.: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeb/budget/shuttle4.html >(LOTS of cool information) > >----------------------------------------------------------------- >David Levine Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Nov 14 14:42 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4487" "Fri" "14" "November" "1997" "17:41:16" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "92" "starship-design: Re: Re: regarding fuel expenditures" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA10766 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:41:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin86.mail.aol.com (mrin86.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.196]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA10723 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:41:46 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin86.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA21208; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:41:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971114174116_-1975552288@mrin86.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 4486 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: hal@buffnet.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Re: regarding fuel expenditures Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:41:16 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/13/97 1:09:16 AM, you wrote: >Hello Kelly, > Thanks for your response on the matter . I have always enjoyed >science fiction for two reasons. The first is that it is entertaining, >and the second is that some of the speculative stuff winds up becoming >fact given enough time. Same here. > If you ever get a change, and feel like taking the time and effort >(which I suspect is in short supply ), take a look at GURPS VEHICLES >II, which is a set of comprehensive rules for approximating vehicles past, >present, and future. There are obvious "problems" and such, but for the >most part, it makes a person think a little. Recently, I began to think >about what the interstellar probe might be like some 100 years of so into >the future. Using GURPS VEHICLES, I postulated a maglev like structure >built upon the moon, or perhaps free floating in orbit. > In any case, the idea was to launch the device towards the earth, and >from there, towards the sun. The maglev launcher would launch a rocket >assembly towards the sun such that the "rocket booster" wouldn't actually >fire until the probe was near the hyperbola portion of it's "free fall >towards the sun". The rocket engine would insure that it went into a >hyperbolic orbit. While close to the sun, the separated assemblies (ie >the rocket was exhausted and a small modest booster charge separated the >payload from the booster) would go their own way, with the payload >automatically spreading it's solar sails. Using the solar sails as a >further boost, the probe would accellerate to faster speeds. > My biggest question about the above mentioned "concept" is just how >close could a payload come to the sun and not be damaged? > The other thing is, I never actually "designed" the payload system nor >the booster system to see what the "imaginary" spaceprobe's top speed >could be leaving the system. You really don't need to do the sligshot manuvers around Earth and the Sun. A star Ship needs such powerfull engines, and has to boost to such high speeds, that the gains from these manuvers are a joke. How close a probe could get to the sun depends on what kind of shielding/cooling system it uses, and the amount of time it stays there, so their no simple answer. > On a related note: by chance, do you or anyone on your discussion list, >know how to calculate proper motion with respect to stars? I downloaded a >50 meg hipparcos file some time back, and it has two entries for proper >motion. They look to be the same format as declination and right >ascention. I got the formula for converting right ascention and >declination (along with the parallax) into cartesian co-ordinates. What I >would like to be able to do, is create, using TRUE BASIC, a program that >will calculate not only the x,y,z co-ordinates, but also where those stars >will be 50, 100, or 500 years from now. Best of all, I can then begin to >account for other factors such as the fact that a ship leaving a planet >has the velocity of the planet plus or minus it's accelleration (dependant >upon what direction the accelleration vector was aimed) along with the >velocity of the star that the ship is leaving from. Of course, this could >work against the ship's favor if you have to overcome the star's velocity >before you can accellerate towards a star that your sun is moving away >from. It takes thousands of years for stars to move visibly in the sky. So as far as a starship is concerned you can assume the possition relative to our sun is fixed. > What I would really "love" to do, is create some form of random Stellar >system generation program that would "accrete" the formation of the >system, calculate the planetary density, radius, and so forth. Then, if I >could get a few realistic formulas regarding formation of planets and so >on, I could create a program that would simulate the universe within a set >"distance" of earth, and allow people to interact with it as though they >were "exploring" the universe. It would take into account the fantasy >Faster than light drives, along with some of the more realistic Slower >than light drives. You might be able to find such programs as shareware somewhere. Can't think of where of hand though. > Well, I have bent your ears enough, and I am probably boring you to >tears. Any help you could send my way would be greatly appreciated. > > Respectfully yours, > Hal Hop the above helps. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Nov 14 14:42 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1219" "Fri" "14" "November" "1997" "17:41:39" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "32" "Re: starship-design: Re: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA11130 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:42:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin58.mail.aol.com (mrin58.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.168]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA11073 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:42:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin58.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA14625; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:41:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971114174139_1313919578@mrin58.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1218 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Hull Materials Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:41:39 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/13/97 5:28:20 AM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >Hi Kelly, > >>>> High melting points may indeed be handy if we're going much higher than >>>> 0.3c, then the temperatures can be similar to those of the Shuttle's >>>> shield when entering orbit. >> >>Does this mean my litium-6 sail and fuel plug will have a heating problem? >> Cruise speed was supposed to be over .4 c. > >Yes, I think it will have a problem. > >The number (6000Watt/m^2) I mentioned assumes that all radiation is >transferred into heat. To do that, a certain amount of stopping power is >necessary. That is, the shield should be thick enough. >It seems that lower energy protons will loose their energy rather fast, >actually faster than one would realize: A 10MeV proton will come to a >complete "standstill" after only 60 micrometers of aluminium. >My table/formula is only valid upto 10MeV protons, so I can't be sure about >what happens when one encounters a 80MeV proton (the energy of a proton at >0.4c), but I assume it will not lessen the problem. > >Timothy Would the microwave beam pushing the sail help clear stuff out ahead of the ship? Should/could we blast an area clear for the acceleration burn? Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Nov 14 14:42 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["925" "Fri" "14" "November" "1997" "17:41:44" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "36" "Re: Re: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA11354 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:42:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin79.mail.aol.com (mrin79.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.189]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA11280 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:42:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin79.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA26755; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:41:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971114174143_1912859355@mrin79> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 924 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:41:44 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/13/97 6:42:06 AM, you wrote: >Hello Kelly, > Good idea. > What would desirable density be? > How much mass would that consume? > How much would it counteract thrust? > > Sorry for just asking questions. I'm the inquisitive kind. > >Antonio C T Rocha > >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> (.....) >> Oh, did I mention the dust shield idea? You dump a cloud of fine dust or gas >> ahead of you. The debres slams into it and vaporizes, or at least ionizes. >> The resulting plasma is fairly easy to steer magnetically. >> >> Kelly Cant remember. I think the Deadalis folks worked up some numbers? If you keep a slight charge on the stuff you might be able to pull it around with an Ion beam, or just fire it dirctly ahead of you and keep the desity in any given length low enough so it doesn't disperse. Drag should be minimal. Compared to the main engines this wouls probably be nothing. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Nov 14 14:42 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["893" "Fri" "14" "November" "1997" "17:41:59" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "29" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA11570 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:42:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin47.mail.aol.com (mrin47.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.157]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA11474 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:42:29 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin47.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA27965; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:41:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971114174158_664397148@mrin47> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 892 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, KellySt@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:41:59 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/13/97 8:16:41 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >On Wednesday, November 12, 1997 11:01 PM, KellySt@aol.com >[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: > > >> Oh, did I mention the dust shield idea? You dump a cloud of fine dust or >> gas >> ahead of you. The debres slams into it and vaporizes, or at least >> ionizes. >> The resulting plasma is fairly easy to steer magnetically. >> >> Kelly > >Except how do we get the dust cloud to acclerate along with the ship? I >suppose some sort of mhd field surrounding the ship would not only deflect >particles but could be made to trap and hold some as well. > >Lee That, or you fire it out ahead of you at higher speed then you intend to go. As long as the ship stays in its wake (and it doesn't disperse to much) you don't have a problem. Besides you don't accelerate for very long compared to the long cruse between. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Nov 14 14:42 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["676" "Fri" "14" "November" "1997" "17:42:06" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "25" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA11850 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:42:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin44.mail.aol.com (mrin44.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.154]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA11660 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:42:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin44.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA18629; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:42:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971114174205_1204232800@mrin44.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 675 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:42:06 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/13/97 8:16:58 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >On Wednesday, November 12, 1997 11:01 PM, KellySt@aol.com >[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: >> Does this mean my litium-6 sail and fuel plug will have a heating >problem? >> >> Cruise speed was supposed to be over .4 c. >> >> Kelly > > >No, heating from interstellar impacts doesn't become severe until you reach >better than .9c. Besides, the material has to stop or at least slow down >the impacting object in order to absorb heat from it. Anything hitting a >lithium sail will go through it like tissue paper... :-) > >Lee Oh, I feel some much better about the durability of my sail. =| Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Nov 14 14:43 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1705" "Fri" "14" "November" "1997" "17:42:24" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "54" "Re: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA12330 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:43:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin53.mail.aol.com (mrin53.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.163]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA12090; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:42:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin53.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA13242; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:42:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971114174223_-464660824@mrin53.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1704 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl, owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:42:24 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/14/97 5:26:19 AM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >Hi Lee, > >>I don't remember the specifics on Kelly's sail, but most proposals for >>solar/laser/microwave sails are only 100 micrometers thick at best. I still >>think most protons, etc. will just blow right through the sail without even >>impacting much of anything, especially if it isn't a solid sail, and there >>is no reason why it should be solid. > >With not solid, you mean meshlike? -- Yup. >--That indeed would decrease the problem >significantly. Yeah! >Protons, unlike photons can/will loose their energy partially when they >encounter matter. > >If the formula I use is valid and my calculations are right then a proton >will loose 7.5MeV in a solid lithium layer of 100 micrometer. > >Let me do some calculus to estimate the equilibrium temperature of the sail. > 10 protons per cubic cm, sail velocity 1.2E10 cm/s > Number of protons per square cm per second: 1.2E11 > Number of protons per square meter per second: 1.2E15 > Power per square meter: 1.2E15*7.5E6*1.6E-19=1440 Watt/m^2 > Sail has 2 sides to radiate the energy away, so that makes 720 Watt/m^2 >That gives an equilibrium temperature of 335 Kelvin or 62 Celcius. (Litium >melts at 180 Celcius.) > >A reverse calculation tells me that a 600 micron thick solid litium shield >will melt assuming 10 protons per cubic cm at 0.4c. > >So indeed the problem may be less than I at first thought. Let's just hope >that this number of 10 protons per cubic cm is a maximum. Thats probably high. Last i heard they were expecting it would be well under 1 p per cm cubed. Thats why the ramscoop looked like such a lost cause. >Timothy Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Nov 14 14:43 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["767" "Fri" "14" "November" "1997" "17:42:32" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "23" "Re: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA12432 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:43:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin84.mail.aol.com (mrin84.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.194]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA12331 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:43:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin84.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA03243; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:42:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971114174230_1237681702@mrin84.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 766 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:42:32 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/14/97 11:00:59 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Timothy, > >Why was the sail made of lithium? There are plenty of choices that have >much better tensile strength, high reflectivity, and high emissivity. >Calcium metal for instance, it is as easy to work as copper, almost as >light as lithium and much stronger than lithium. It is also a better >electrical conductor than copper which may turn out to be useful. > >There are lots of alloys that will also provide superior characteristics >than lithium. > >Lee Lithium-6 and hydrogen can fuel a fusion reactor with out producing radiation or heat it noatable quantityies. I.E. the microwave sail is collected and burned as the deceleration fuel. Hence the name Fuel/Sail. ;) Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Nov 14 16:24 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4330" "Fri" "14" "November" "1997" "18:23:49" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "92" "The fuelsail is stupid (was starship-design: Hull Materials)" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA25778 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:24:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (nil.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.47]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA25764 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:24:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA01611; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 18:23:56 -0600 Message-Id: <9711150023.AA01611@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <971114174230_1237681702@mrin84.mail.aol.com> from "KellySt@aol.com" at Nov 14, 97 05:42:32 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 4329 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: The fuelsail is stupid (was starship-design: Hull Materials) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 18:23:49 -0600 (CST) The fuelsail concept is stupid. The reason is that if it is possible to build such a thing with one's technology, it is much easier to build a variant of it--and probably a straight fusion rocket would _greatly_ outperform it. KellySt@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 11/14/97 11:00:59 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >>Why was the sail made of lithium? >Lithium-6 and hydrogen can fuel a fusion reactor with out producing radiation >or heat it noatable quantityies. I.E. the microwave sail is collected and >burned as the deceleration fuel. Hence the name Fuel/Sail. ;) The basic cause of the problem with the fuel/sail concept is that it requires using an excellent fusion rocket to decelerate it. If you've got such a good rocket for the deceleration run, you could have used it for _both_ the acceleration and deceleration run. All the "sail" part of the fuel/sail really gets you is that it forces you to build this huge honking laser. Here's the proof: Suppose you have a practical fuel/sail design capable of a one way trip in the amount of time you desire using a laser with a power level of X watts. I will show you can modify the design so that you will have a new design capable of satisfying all your mission parameters, but with a laser of only X/100 watts. The new design has a vehicle which is identical to the original design, except it has no sail. Instead it just has a fuel "tank" which is a lump of lithium. In addition, this vehicle has a large scoop (magnetic and/or otherwise). This will add some weight, but only if the original design didn't already have such a scoop for the fusion rocket nozzle. I will assume it _doubles_ the payload weight of the vehicle. What is this scoop used for? It's used to catch fuel, which consists of lithium sails launched using a laser of X/100 watts. Each of these sails is merely 1/100th of the mass of the original starship, but a total of 300 will be launched. The new design has a fuel "tank" twice as big as the original design. It uses the fusion rocket for its acceleration run, which uses most of its fuel. Shortly before the acceleration run is finished, the launch of the lithium sails starts, one at a time. The velocity of each of these sails is set to be a little bit faster than the starship's cruise velocity. While cruising, the lithium sails will catch up with the starship, which uses rocket thrusts to maneuver into position in order to catch the sails with its scoop. Eventually the starship will be refueled--theoretically this should take 200 sails, but I assume an incredible amount of fuel will be wasted in maneuvering to catch the sails. After the ship is refueled, it cruises the rest of the way. Near the target system, the starship uses its fusion drive to decelerate. This new design will work assuming the original design would have worked, but it requires 1/100 the power in laser (which is easily the biggest ticket item, in terms of how much power is needed and probably cost). More lithium is needed, but the lithium sails can be manufactured while the ship is already underway. Importantly, the big honking laser of the original design will obviously be much, much, heavier than the entire amount of lithium needed for the latter design. Even if the laser were as inexpensive per ton as lithium sails, the latter design is much less expensive. So there you have it. If the fuel/sail concept is even possible, there is no good reason to do it. Even if the scoop I mentionned weighed 10 _times_ as much as the payload, you'll probably save in the cost of the laser more than you'll save in the cost of the lithium. That said, the new design is pretty stupid as well. Why bother using lithium at all? It's going to be a lot harder to develop a lithium/hydrogen fusion reactor than a D-D or D-T reactor. Why wait an extra hundred years for a lithium/hydrogen fusion reactor when you can use D-D or D-T today? At worst, you can get interstellar capable Isp levels using MagOrion (H-bombs pushing a huge superconducting loop). -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Nov 14 17:08 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2962" "Fri" "14" "November" "1997" "20:04:23" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "64" "RE: RE: starship-design: Space Money" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA24939 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:08:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA24920 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:08:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 20:04:25 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 2961 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Space Money Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 20:04:23 -0500 Actually, according to the reference I gave, those budget figures DO include money to maintain those facilities (and construct new ones), although only for the percentage of the facility that is dedicated to Shuttle. In fact, cash goes to every major NASA center. Obviously most of it goes to JSC and KSC. And, no, the cost of the missions is not included. For FY1996 this was $323,000,000. It drops by 1/3 over the next two years. But when we're trying to determine how much a shuttle mission costs, you don't include it's cargo. But let's say we did. Now we're at $9,630 per pound. This figure does not include actual analysis of data, which is in a different allocation (Science) - but I think this is really off-limits for consideration in the cost of space-flight. Anyway, let's take the -entire- Human Space Flight budget for FY1996, which includes Shuttle, Payloads and Utilization, Space Station (my old division, recall), and US/Russian. This is $5.7 billion. Now we get $15,833 per pound of cargo. This is more in-line with your figures, but I wonder how old they are? Considering I had to throw all of those other budgets together... The budget -can- change drastically from year to year. Just for general information, NASA's FY1998 estimates show: 1. Human Space Flight (i.e. Station and Shuttle, including all related activities) = 41% 2. Science (including Education Outreach) = 40% 3. Communications, Core Infrastructure, Civil Service = 18% 4. Auditing = 1% I also don't doubt that in the past Shuttle took up to 67%, as that really is not too different from the current allocations. It's still the biggest (barely). But I think that NASA's policies have been changing over the last couple of years (remember, also, these figures are for -1998-). After all, Dan Goldin's warning was serious... Also, I don't disagree with you that the cost of Shuttle is enormous. It is indeed staggering. I think we just disagree on the level of insanity. ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. > ---------- > From: KellySt@aol.com[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] > NASA uses some budget tricks to hide the expenses. I.E. Shuttle > budget only > shows the direct cost to service the shuttle. It doesn't include the > cost to > matain the facilities around the country (KSc, JSC, HQ, etc) that are > only > used to service the shuttle, or the cost of the missions the shuttle > flies. > > At NASA HQ (and the GAO) they estrimated as much as 2.3rds of NASA > budget > went to shuttle support. Goldin told the department I was in (office > of > space access tech) that if they couldn't develope a cheaper system > shuttle > would consume NASA, and the agency would be forced to shut down all > manned > opps. > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Nov 15 08:26 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3520" "Sat" "15" "November" "1997" "11:25:19" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "69" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Space Money" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA05118 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 08:25:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin46.mail.aol.com (mrin46.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.156]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA05110 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 08:25:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin46.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id LAA25487; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:25:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971115112518_-489061133@mrin46.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3519 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: david@actionworld.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Space Money Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:25:19 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/14/97 9:55:20 PM, you wrote: >Actually, according to the reference I gave, those budget figures DO >include money to maintain those facilities (and construct new ones), >although only for the percentage of the facility that is dedicated to >Shuttle. In fact, cash goes to every major NASA center. Obviously most >of it goes to JSC and KSC. And, no, the cost of the missions is not >included. For FY1996 this was $323,000,000. It drops by 1/3 over the >next two years. But when we're trying to determine how much a shuttle >mission costs, you don't include it's cargo. But let's say we did. Now >we're at $9,630 per pound. This figure does not include actual analysis >of data, which is in a different allocation (Science) - but I think this >is really off-limits for consideration in the cost of space-flight. >Anyway, let's take the -entire- Human Space Flight budget for FY1996, >which includes Shuttle, Payloads and Utilization, Space Station (my old >division, recall), and US/Russian. This is $5.7 billion. Now we get >$15,833 per pound of cargo. This is more in-line with your figures, but >I wonder how old they are? Considering I had to throw all of those >other budgets together... The budget -can- change drastically from year >to year. > >Just for general information, NASA's FY1998 estimates show: >1. Human Space Flight (i.e. Station and Shuttle, including all related >activities) = 41% >2. Science (including Education Outreach) = 40% >3. Communications, Core Infrastructure, Civil Service = 18% >4. Auditing = 1% > >I also don't doubt that in the past Shuttle took up to 67%, as that >really is not too different from the current allocations. It's still >the biggest (barely). But I think that NASA's policies have been >changing over the last couple of years (remember, also, these figures >are for -1998-). After all, Dan Goldin's warning was serious... > >Also, I don't disagree with you that the cost of Shuttle is enormous. >It is indeed staggering. I think we just disagree on the level of >insanity. > >------------------------------------------------------ >David Levine Yeah ignoring the details my numbers when I worked in shuttle flight planning were whispered at about $20,000 per pound, yours are about $10,000. That would make a fully loaded shuttle at best, be as expensive as a fully loaded Titan booster. A hellishly high amount for a reusable system. Most of this cost is in labor hours. It took about 3-4,000 people in KSC about 3-4 months to prep the shuttles (not including cargo) for launch. Thats about 1,000 man years. Given the old labor hours cost numbers I remember that would come to $100,000,000 to $300,000,000 in labor/benifits and overhead. Add in a few replacement parts (like the external tank) and you get to a quarter to maybe .4 billion pretty quickly. (NASA's been streamlining a lot the last couple years so the lower numbers are probably better.) Then you add in the costs of the mission stuff, astronaut training, etc. All in all its hardly surprizing that the companies offering to build SSTO's were confident they could cut costs a factor of 10. I saw an interview with a couple of the old astronauts (Matingly and Conrad) They joked that NASA did an excelent job, under bad conditions, to do the shuttle. But they did a great job of building the wrong ship. I.E. a do anything, reusable cheap to build, uses lots of existing facilities, can act as a space station or cargo craft, space ship. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Nov 15 08:59 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6581" "Sat" "15" "November" "1997" "11:59:25" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "139" "Re: The fuelsail is stupid (was starship-design: Hull Materials)" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA13001 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 08:59:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin46.mail.aol.com (mrin46.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.156]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA12996 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 08:59:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin46.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id LAA10535; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:59:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971115115925_1726141998@mrin46.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 6580 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: The fuelsail is stupid (was starship-design: Hull Materials) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:59:25 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/15/97 5:31:48 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >The fuelsail concept is stupid. The reason is that if it is possible to >build such a thing with one's technology, it is much easier to build >a variant of it--and probably a straight fusion rocket would _greatly_ >outperform it. > >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>In a message dated 11/14/97 11:00:59 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: > >>>Why was the sail made of lithium? > >>Lithium-6 and hydrogen can fuel a fusion reactor with out producing radiation >>or heat it noatable quantityies. I.E. the microwave sail is collected and >>burned as the deceleration fuel. Hence the name Fuel/Sail. ;) > >The basic cause of the problem with the fuel/sail concept is that it >requires using an excellent fusion rocket to decelerate it. If you've >got such a good rocket for the deceleration run, you could have used >it for _both_ the acceleration and deceleration run. All the "sail" >part of the fuel/sail really gets you is that it forces you to build >this huge honking laser. > >Here's the proof: > > Suppose you have a practical fuel/sail design capable of a one way > trip in the amount of time you desire using a laser with a power > level of X watts. I will show you can modify the design so that > you will have a new design capable of satisfying all your mission > parameters, but with a laser of only X/100 watts. > > The new design has a vehicle which is identical to the original > design, except it has no sail. Instead it just has a fuel "tank" > which is a lump of lithium. In addition, this vehicle has a > large scoop (magnetic and/or otherwise). This will add some > weight, but only if the original design didn't already have > such a scoop for the fusion rocket nozzle. I will assume > it _doubles_ the payload weight of the vehicle. > > What is this scoop used for? It's used to catch fuel, which consists > of lithium sails launched using a laser of X/100 watts. Each of > these sails is merely 1/100th of the mass of the original starship, > but a total of 300 will be launched. > > The new design has a fuel "tank" twice as big as the original > design. It uses the fusion rocket for its acceleration run, > which uses most of its fuel. > > Shortly before the acceleration run is finished, the launch of > the lithium sails starts, one at a time. The velocity of each > of these sails is set to be a little bit faster than the > starship's cruise velocity. > > While cruising, the lithium sails will catch up with the starship, > which uses rocket thrusts to maneuver into position in order to > catch the sails with its scoop. Eventually the starship will be > refueled--theoretically this should take 200 sails, but I assume > an incredible amount of fuel will be wasted in maneuvering to > catch the sails. > > After the ship is refueled, it cruises the rest of the way. > > Near the target system, the starship uses its fusion drive to > decelerate. > > This new design will work assuming the original design would have > worked, but it requires 1/100 the power in laser (which is easily > the biggest ticket item, in terms of how much power is needed and > probably cost). More lithium is needed, but the lithium sails > can be manufactured while the ship is already underway. Importantly, > the big honking laser of the original design will obviously be > much, much, heavier than the entire amount of lithium needed for > the latter design. Even if the laser were as inexpensive per ton > as lithium sails, the latter design is much less expensive. > >So there you have it. If the fuel/sail concept is even possible, >there is no good reason to do it. Even if the scoop I mentionned >weighed 10 _times_ as much as the payload, you'll probably save >in the cost of the laser more than you'll save in the cost of the >lithium. The concept you outlined is a mild variation of my Explorer class. I'E. the ship accelerates out using onboard fuel or fuel delivered to it as is needed. (for safty carrying the full decel fuel load from the start.) In that design I laser launched fuel to the accelerating ship. The problem with this was geting the ships and fuel packets together. Given the very high velocities and distences involved, it seemed pretty unlikely you could boost a fuel packet to the exact possition and speed of the receeding ship at distences of a half light year or so (slight aim poroblems, or mis calculations of the ships possition, would make it impossible for the ship to catch the package). That pushed the design to have extream acceleration at the start (the farther you get from the sol launchers, the more extream the drift), and heavy counter lasers to manuver the fuel to it at distences of several light minuttes. Given all that it seemed far simpler and safer to use the fuel as the acceleration sail for the ship. The expence of the launching maser platforms is considerable, but the power levels and fusion motor needed are less, acceleration can take place over longer times, and you don't need any precise intercepts. >That said, the new design is pretty stupid as well. Why bother >using lithium at all? It's going to be a lot harder to develop >a lithium/hydrogen fusion reactor than a D-D or D-T reactor. >Why wait an extra hundred years for a lithium/hydrogen fusion >reactor when you can use D-D or D-T today? At worst, you can >get interstellar capable Isp levels using MagOrion (H-bombs >pushing a huge superconducting loop). D-D or D-T need a tank (one likely to outweigh the unfueled starship), will boil off into space over the years, and are very rare and expensive. Lithium is extreamly common and cheap (well under a dollar a pound assuming you refine medical grade Lithium to Lithum-6), can be chemically bonded with hydrogen to carry it, and can be used as a structural metal. So the 'fuel' can be spread out into a mesh sail. Given the decel fuel would need to weigh about 400 times the dry weight of the ship, this dramatically simplifies the sail carry structure and weight. The difficulty of constructing a lithium/hydrogen fusion reactor is comparativly simple compared to our other technical problems. So its unlikely to be a major cost or schedule driver. Oh, a straigh fusion rocket would need to carry 400 times as much fuel to perform as well as a fuel sail configuration. Actually more then that since it would also need to carry engines 400 times heavyier, hence still more fuel to drive the heavyier ship. >-- > _____ Isaac Kuo Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Nov 15 09:50 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["463" "Sat" "15" "November" "1997" "18:49:25" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "15" "starship-design: Photon shield" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA25870 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 09:50:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA25850 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 09:50:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-023.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xWmNN-001XhOC; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 18:51:21 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 462 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Photon shield Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 18:49:25 +0100 Kelly wrote: >Would the microwave beam pushing the sail help clear stuff out ahead of the >ship? Should/could we blast an area clear for the acceleration burn? Yes, I offered that idea before. I don't have any idea about how easely an individual atom or ion can be accelerated upto relativisic speeds by photons. Ken, do you know more about this topic? (Or if you don't know that, maybe you know the kind of keywords/theories that I can look for.) Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Nov 15 09:50 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["584" "Sat" "15" "November" "1997" "18:49:23" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "17" "RE: starship-design: Hull Materials" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA25962 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 09:50:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA25948 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 09:50:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-023.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xWmNL-001XZcC; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 18:51:19 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 583 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Hull Materials Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 18:49:23 +0100 To Lee and Kelly, >Why was the sail made of lithium? If indeed it is used as fuel, the sail likely is to be thick and will absorp ALL energy from the protons. A thick sail also has a smaller area to radiate heat than a thin sail, since the energy that is absorbed in the front will take a while to get to the back. As a result the front will be hotter than the back. Effectively I'd say for a thick enough sail one can use one side to radiate (thus the side facing the impacts). Of course if the number of protons per cubic cm is small enough, there won't be a problem. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Nov 15 11:19 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2441" "Sat" "15" "November" "1997" "14:15:20" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "52" "RE: RE: RE: starship-design: Space Money" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA21727 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:19:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA21720 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:19:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:15:21 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 2440 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: Space Money Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:15:20 -0500 Heh, yeah that's something few people mention: the Space Shuttle is essentially a short-term Space Station, it's not a transport system. In fact, I've read proposals to extend the on-orbit time of a shuttle to 30 days (technically it is supposed to be that way now - but theory and practice are two separate things). Humorously, this is (I think) the time length the Station is supposed to have guaranteed micro-g envrionments (i.e. every 30 days there might be a reboost event or a docking or something that would disturb the micro-g onboard). Ah, SSTO's. One day.... one day.... Hey, there's an interesting question/poll: If we accept that cargo costs are $10k-$20k per pound right now, how many years does everyone think it will take to reduce that cost by a factor of 10? 100? (Factor of 10 gives average size companies the ability to pursue space projects. Factor of 100 gives well-off individuals or groups of individuals to pursue such projects. I suppose factor of around 10000 makes it is cheap as an airplane flight.) My guesses: 10 in perhaps 10 years. 100 in 50 years. After that I think costs will drop dramatically - perhaps we'd start seeing something akin Moore's Law for space travel. You know, once the average company is exploiting space, ten years later costs would be reduced by ANOTHER factor of ten. Then ten years later ANOTHER factor of ten, and so on. Wishful thinking, I know - but I think we can all agree that when there are a bunch of private companies actually -out there-, making good money, that we'll see an explosion in space technology. ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. > ---------- > From: KellySt@aol.com[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] > All in all its hardly surprizing that the companies offering to build > SSTO's > were confident they could cut costs a factor of 10. > > I saw an interview with a couple of the old astronauts (Matingly and > Conrad) > They joked that NASA did an excelent job, under bad conditions, to do > the > shuttle. But they did a great job of building the wrong ship. I.E. a > do > anything, reusable cheap to build, uses lots of existing facilities, > can act > as a space station or cargo craft, space ship. > > Kelly > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Nov 15 12:04 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3215" "Sat" "15" "November" "1997" "13:55:09" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "70" "RE: starship-design: Re: Re: regarding fuel expenditures" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA06113 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 12:04:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA06069 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 12:04:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p29.gnt.com [204.49.68.234]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA29162; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:04:17 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:04:08 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCF1CF.57821B40.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 3214 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'KellySt@aol.com'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Re: regarding fuel expenditures Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 13:55:09 -0600 On Friday, November 14, 1997 4:41 PM, KellySt@aol.com [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: > > In a message dated 11/13/97 1:09:16 AM, you wrote: Kelly, I didn't get Hal's address from this post. If you know what it was you might want to forward the information at the end to > > You really don't need to do the sligshot manuvers around Earth and the > Sun. > A star Ship needs such powerfull engines, and has to boost to such high > speeds, that the gains from these manuvers are a joke. Not quite true, that particular orbital maneuver has already been researched thoroughly, we have even discussed it here. It is called the "Powered Perihelion Maneuver" and is capable of generating up 400 g's of thrust initially. The drawback of course is that this thrust is more than a human can withstand and that it tapers off as your course takes you further from the sun. Due to human limitations, the highest cruise velocity obtainable without further boost from some other sort of engine is only 0.003 c. Something akin to Forward's Starwisp on the other hand, could be accelerated to over 0.3 c in only a few days and even faster using a combination of this maneuver and follow on beamed power from an orbital power satellite. > > How close a probe could get to the sun depends on what kind of > shielding/cooling system it uses, and the amount of time it stays there, > so > their no simple answer. This maneuver was calculated at 0.1 AU (about 1 solar radius) which was calculated to be the closest feasible approach without getting into thermal shielding difficulties. Even so, the sail would be operating at between 1,000 and 1,750 K depending on its reflectivity. On a related note, I went back through some old material relating to sails and found mention of a pure boron sail which would be analogous to your lithium sail. It was spec'd to be only 10 ^-8 m thick, which based on what you and David and I were discussing, might be thick enough to stop a significant amount of protons. However, boron's melting temperature is 2600 K ... I don't think we would need to worry about it at any velocity we are likely to attain with a sail. > > What I would really "love" to do, is create some form of random > > Stellar > >system generation program that would "accrete" the formation of the > >system, calculate the planetary density, radius, and so forth. Then, if > >I > >could get a few realistic formulas regarding formation of planets and so > >on, I could create a program that would simulate the universe within a > >set > >"distance" of earth, and allow people to interact with it as though they > >were "exploring" the universe. It would take into account the fantasy > >Faster than light drives, along with some of the more realistic Slower > >than light drives. > > You might be able to find such programs as shareware somewhere. Can't > think > of where of hand though. Search the net under the keyword "starfire" there is such a program, it generates random star systems from a seed. I don't remember if it also generated planets or not. I believe it probably did because it was designed to generate a playing field for the RPG "Starfire". The output is a text file. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Nov 15 12:44 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1382" "Sat" "15" "November" "1997" "14:43:19" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "27" "RE: RE: RE: starship-design: Space Money" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA19367 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 12:44:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA19326 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 12:44:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p16.gnt.com [204.49.68.221]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA32044; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:44:00 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:43:56 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCF1D4.E671A6E0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1381 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'David Levine'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: Space Money Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:43:19 -0600 On Saturday, November 15, 1997 1:15 PM, David Levine [SMTP:david@actionworld.com] wrote: > Ah, SSTO's. One day.... one day.... > > Hey, there's an interesting question/poll: If we accept that cargo costs > are $10k-$20k per pound right now, how many years does everyone think it > will take to reduce that cost by a factor of 10? 100? (Factor of 10 > gives average size companies the ability to pursue space projects. > Factor of 100 gives well-off individuals or groups of individuals to > pursue such projects. I suppose factor of around 10000 makes it is > cheap as an airplane flight.) > > My guesses: 10 in perhaps 10 years. 100 in 50 years. After that I > think costs will drop dramatically - perhaps we'd start seeing something > akin Moore's Law for space travel. You know, once the average company > is exploiting space, ten years later costs would be reduced by ANOTHER > factor of ten. Then ten years later ANOTHER factor of ten, and so on. > Wishful thinking, I know - but I think we can all agree that when there > are a bunch of private companies actually -out there-, making good > money, that we'll see an explosion in space technology. If we are going to make our timetable of 50 years then we had better hope that Moore's Law kicks in TODAY. We need an order of magnitude reduction every ten years for the next fifty years in order to make it... Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Nov 15 13:02 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1919" "Sat" "15" "November" "1997" "15:58:45" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "41" "RE: RE: RE: starship-design: Space Money" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA24635 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 13:02:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA24630 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 13:02:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 15:58:45 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 1918 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: Space Money Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 15:58:45 -0500 Heh, you're right - I didn't even realize my first statement "10 in perhaps 10 years" was pretty much the same speed as my predictions for the distant future when I saw Moore's Law kicking in. Oops. The second statement, though, of "100 in 50 years" is definately slower than that, though. If it was the same rate, it would have been "10 in perhaps 10 years. 100 in 20 years." An order of magnitude every ten years for fifty years is, of course, 10^5, or 100,000 times cheaper than today. That would be pretty cheap access to space - it would cost $0.10 - $0.20 per pound to launch into orbit. Cheaper than an airline flight, in fact. Perhaps in a few centuries... On another note, the real Moore's Law says - what? Computing power per unit cost doubles every two years or something like that? Of course that means computing power per unit cost increases by 32 times every decade, right? At least our Space Moore's Law is a little more conservative, hoping that (whenever it kicks in - IF it ever does) space travel would become 10 times cheaper every decade. I've read one thing about Vinge's Singularity that fascinates me: assuming no limit anytime in the near future on Moore's Law, imagine a computer is developed that is as capable and as advanced as a human brain... Then what comes two years after that? How about two years after THAT? ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. > ---------- > From: L. Parker[SMTP:lparker@cacaphony.net] > If we are going to make our timetable of 50 years then we had better > hope > that Moore's Law kicks in TODAY. We need an order of magnitude > reduction > every ten years for the next fifty years in order to make it... > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Nov 15 14:17 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3496" "Sat" "15" "November" "1997" "16:15:30" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "66" "starship-design: Moore's Law & Vinge's Singularity" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA19530 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:17:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA19516 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:16:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p41.gnt.com [204.49.68.246]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA06348; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 16:16:51 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 16:16:46 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCF1E1.DEB571E0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 3495 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'David Levine'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Moore's Law & Vinge's Singularity Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 16:15:30 -0600 On Saturday, November 15, 1997 2:59 PM, David Levine [SMTP:david@actionworld.com] wrote: > Heh, you're right - I didn't even realize my first statement "10 in > perhaps 10 years" was pretty much the same speed as my predictions for > the distant future when I saw Moore's Law kicking in. Oops. > > The second statement, though, of "100 in 50 years" is definately slower > than that, though. If it was the same rate, it would have been "10 in > perhaps 10 years. 100 in 20 years." > > An order of magnitude every ten years for fifty years is, of course, > 10^5, or 100,000 times cheaper than today. That would be pretty cheap > access to space - it would cost $0.10 - $0.20 per pound to launch into > orbit. Cheaper than an airline flight, in fact. Perhaps in a few > centuries... Perhaps, but let's think this through. If we are going to do what we say (or need) then we must have commonplace, quick, easy, cheap access to orbit within twenty years. Okay fine, two orders of magnitude will cover that. But at thirty years we need to be able to reach the Moon as easily as London. Now we need three orders of magnitude to _orbit_ in order to realize two orders of magnitude reduction in cost to the Moon. Extrapolating the trend, at forty years we should be able to reach ANY of the inner planets, asteroids, etc. as easily and cheaply as we were getting to the Moon ten years before, which means ANOTHER magnitude cheaper just to get to orbit. Finally, at fifty years, the jumping off point to the stars we must have at least begun thoroughly exploring the far reaches of Sun Space so we need yet another order of magnitude reduction in cost. Now there is a way to shortcut this equation. At some point, heavy lift access to the surface of the Earth becomes irrelevant. Space based industry, once established can produce far superior products than can be manufactured on Earth and probably do it for less money given the availability of almost free power. So it may be sufficient to level or taper off at two or three magnitudes reduction in cost for planet to space access. On the other hand, with the materials available to us in this stellar system alone, unless we have EXTREMELY cheap access down and back, with no ground side support, there is really very little reason to colonize planets around other stars. There will not be ANY economic incentive to do so. About the only thing that planets can provide that can't be duplicated outside of their gravity well is luxury foodstuffs. > > On another note, the real Moore's Law says - what? Computing power per > unit cost doubles every two years or something like that? Of course > that means computing power per unit cost increases by 32 times every > decade, right? At least our Space Moore's Law is a little more > conservative, hoping that (whenever it kicks in - IF it ever does) space > travel would become 10 times cheaper every decade. > > I've read one thing about Vinge's Singularity that fascinates me: > assuming no limit anytime in the near future on Moore's Law, imagine a > computer is developed that is as capable and as advanced as a human > brain... Then what comes two years after that? How about two years > after THAT? Until several recent announcements from IBM, I was beginning to get worried we had hit the wall already... Nevertheless, some scientists are already saying that they can see the wall coming. Of course that is what they said about the speed of sound too. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Nov 15 20:21 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4584" "Sat" "15" "November" "1997" "22:20:57" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "78" "starship-design: Landis' Mars Plan" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA16859 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 20:21:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA16817 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 20:21:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p11.gnt.com [204.49.68.216]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA01305 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 22:21:32 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 22:21:27 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCF214.D0E70500.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 4583 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Landis' Mars Plan Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 22:20:57 -0600 This paper is a little old and some of you have probably read it before, but going back through old files has brought forth a lot of little gems... This is important not so much for the actual steps involved, but for the slowness of the timetable and Landis' assertion (correct unfortunately) about funding. "Footsteps to Mars: An Incremental Approach to Mars Exploration," Geoffrey Landis, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 48, September 1995, pp. 367-372. Landis, an engineer (and award-winning science fiction author) at NASA's Lewis Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio, presented the original version of this paper at the Case for Mars V conference in May 1993. He states that President Bush's "Space Exploration Initiative (SEI). . .is politically dead. It is viewed as an expensive Republican program with no place in the current era of deficit reduction. . .The political question is: how can we advocate Mars exploration without appearing to be attempting to revive S EI?" Landis proposes a new Mars exploration program which, he says, takes into account lessons taught by Apollo ("[i]f you accomplish your goal, your budget will be cut") and Shuttle ("if you do the same thing over and over, the public will focus on your failures and forget your successes"). Landis' program is a 14-year series of incremental "footsteps," which, he says, fits NASA's new "faster, better, cheaper" approach to spaceflight. First footstep: Piloted Mars Flyby - A piloted Mars flyby mission relying on U.S. and Russian space station technology and existing boosters could occur "immediately," Landis writes. The 18-month mission demonstrates the transfer vehicle, long-duration interplanetary flight, and Earth return. During the flyby the astronauts take advantage of short two-way radio time-delays to teleoperate a rover on Mars. Relying on teleoperation helps ensure planetary quarantine while life on Mars remains an open issue. The rover leaves Earth separate from the piloted flyby craft. Second footstep: Mars orbit and Deimos Landing - Landis reports that, with the possible exception of a few near-Earth asteroids, Mars' outer moon is the most easily accessible object outside of Earth orbit in terms of propellant needed to reach it. The mission demonstrates Mars orbit insertion and orbital operations, as well as trans-Earth injection. Landis adds that Deimos might become a resource base providing water that can be electrolyzed into hydrogen and oxygen rocket propellants. Third footstep: Mars orbit and Phobos Landing - "From Phobos," Landis writes, "the view of Mars will be spectacular." Landis proposes that an unmanned version of the piloted Mars lander be tested while serving double duty as a sample-return vehicle. Phobos' low orbit allows the lander to launch Mars surface samples to Phobos for recovery by the crew. Fourth footstep: Earth orbit operation & Moon landing - This footstep tests the Mars lander in Earth orbit and on the moon. Fifth footstep: Mars Polar Landing - Landis writes that Mars' poles have readily accessible water that can be processed into fuel. In addition, the Sun remains in the sky continuously during local summer - a great advantage for solar power systems. Sixth footstep: Mars Temperate Landing - This mission marks the culmination of Landis' program. Successfully accomplishing this step will, Landis maintains, result in budget cuts and program cancellation within two years. Seventh footstep: Valles Marineris landing - Landis proposes a landing in Mars' equatorial "Grand Canyon" as a spectacular coda which might be exciting enough to help delay program cancellation. Landis states that finding easily exploitable resources on Deimos, Phobos, and Mars could lower costs, allowing piloted exploration to continue on "a shuttle-scale budget." He proposes that Mars replace the Cold War as a driver for western aerospace, thereby arresting the downsizing shaking western aerospace organizations. In addition, the Soviet Union's collapse makes Russia - with its Energia heavy-lift rocket, Mir modules, and long-duration spaceflight experience - available as a cooperative partner. Landis urges an immediate program start, saying that "despite indications, there is no better time to act." (o o) ------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo----- ---- Up the airy mountain, Down the rushy glen, We daren't go a-hunting For fear of little men; William Allingham, Ireland, 1850 From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Nov 16 06:58 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1424" "Sun" "16" "November" "1997" "08:56:52" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "37" "starship-design: A Rocket a Day Keeps the High Costs Away" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA15179 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 06:58:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA15172 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 06:58:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p32.gnt.com [204.49.68.237]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA29328 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 08:58:46 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 08:58:44 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCF26D.D7D2BA40.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BCF26D.D7ECAAE0" Content-Length: 1423 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: A Rocket a Day Keeps the High Costs Away Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 08:56:52 -0600 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCF26D.D7ECAAE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is a page on John Walker's web site. The entire site is interesting reading but this page is relevant to David and my earlier conversations about lowering the cost of access to space. John makes the case, correctly, that we can lower the cost by a factor of ten RIGHT NOW, without any significant advancements in technology. He also points out that this plan is within reach of most of the national aerospace corporations. There are only two things missing vision and will. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html Now that we are finally getting some interest in commercial access, we are about to see a major shift in the corporate balance of power. The Boeings, and Lockheeds, etc. that continue to milk the cash cow rather than boldly take the reins in their own hands will suddenly find themselves playing catch-up in a crowded playing field with limited launch space left. Isn't that an entertaining idea? Lee ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCF26D.D7ECAAE0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="A Rocket a Day Keeps the High Costs Away.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 W0ludGVybmV0U2hvcnRjdXRdDQpVUkw9aHR0cDovL3d3dy5mb3VybWlsYWIuY2gvZG9jdW1lbnRz L3JvY2tldGFkYXkuaHRtbA0KTW9kaWZpZWQ9RTAzRTdBQzE5RUYyQkMwMUE2DQo= ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCF26D.D7ECAAE0-- From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Nov 16 12:13 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1730" "Sun" "16" "November" "1997" "10:31:02" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "40" "Re: starship-design: Re: Re: regarding fuel expenditures" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA05531 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 12:12:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA05363 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 12:12:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA19564; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 10:31:03 -0600 Message-Id: <9711161631.AA19564@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <01BCF1CF.57821B40.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Nov 15, 97 01:55:09 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1729 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Re: regarding fuel expenditures Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 10:31:02 -0600 (CST) L. Parker wrote: >On Friday, November 14, 1997 4:41 PM, KellySt@aol.com >[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: >> You really don't need to do the sligshot manuvers around Earth and the >> Sun. >> A star Ship needs such powerfull engines, and has to boost to such high >> speeds, that the gains from these manuvers are a joke. >Not quite true, that particular orbital maneuver has already been >researched thoroughly, we have even discussed it here.A That's not the point. The point is that the potential extra benefit is a ridiculously small amount compared to a percent of c in delta-v. In fact, the disadvantages are such that they overwhelm any advantage. >It is called the >"Powered Perihelion Maneuver" and is capable of generating up 400 g's of >thrust initially. The drawback of course is that this thrust is more than a >human can withstand and that it tapers off as your course takes you further >from the sun. Even without the human limitation, strengthenning an unmanned probe for 400 g's will increase its mass by at least some small fraction. This will make it require _more_ fuel, not less. >Due to human limitations, the highest cruise velocity obtainable without >further boost from some other sort of engine is only 0.003 c. Something >akin to Forward's Starwisp on the other hand, could be accelerated to over >0.3 c in only a few days and even faster using a combination of this >maneuver and follow on beamed power from an orbital power satellite. It would not be significantly faster. And that's the point. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Nov 16 12:38 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4410" "Sun" "16" "November" "1997" "10:30:21" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "101" "Re: The fuelsail is stupid (was starship-design: Hull Materials)" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA15746 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 12:38:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA15402 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 12:37:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA19553; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 10:30:21 -0600 Message-Id: <9711161630.AA19553@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <971115115925_1726141998@mrin46.mail.aol.com> from "KellySt@aol.com" at Nov 15, 97 11:59:25 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 4409 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: The fuelsail is stupid (was starship-design: Hull Materials) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 10:30:21 -0600 (CST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 11/15/97 5:31:48 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>The fuelsail concept is stupid. The reason is that if it is possible to >>build such a thing with one's technology, it is much easier to build >>a variant of it--and probably a straight fusion rocket would _greatly_ >>outperform it. [...] >>So there you have it. If the fuel/sail concept is even possible, >>there is no good reason to do it. Even if the scoop I mentionned >>weighed 10 _times_ as much as the payload, you'll probably save >>in the cost of the laser more than you'll save in the cost of the >>lithium. >The concept you outlined is a mild variation of my Explorer class. I'm aware of this. However, I explained in detail why this specific modification of a theoretical fuel/sail design would be better. >I'E. the >ship accelerates out using onboard fuel or fuel delivered to it as is needed. > (for safty carrying the full decel fuel load from the start.) In this design I assume that the ship itself has to maneuver in order to catch the fuel packages. I assume this requires 50% more fuel just to catch the fuel packages! And I assume the scoop used weighs as much as the rest of the payload! This increases the fuel requirements by a factor of 6. However, considering the laser's cost is reduced by a factor of 100, it's easily worth it. Consider that the laser will weigh many magnitudes more than the fueled starship in the fuel/sail design. For simplicity's sake, lets assume the laser is merely 1000 times as heavy as the starship. The new design will require 6 times as much fuel, but only 1% as much laser. Overall, the total mass of the system is reduced by 99%. Kilogram for kilogram, the laser is going to cost at least as much as the fuel packages. Probably it will cost a _lot_ more, pound for pound. Thus, the new system will cost about 1% as much as the fuel/sail design. >Given all that it seemed far simpler and safer to use the fuel as the >acceleration sail for the ship. It costs and weighs 100 times as much as this alternative. And that's assuming the scoop needed weighs an incredible amount and an incredible amount of fuel is wasted making fuel intercepts by moving the entire ship. >The expence of the launching maser platforms >is considerable, but the power levels and fusion motor needed are less, >acceleration can take place over longer times, and you don't need any precise >intercepts. The power level of the maser platform is _much_ higher than anything else in the entire system. What in the world in the entire starship system has comparable power levels? Assuming the new design requires a scoop which weighs as much as the entire payload, the fusion motor only needs to be twice as powerful. Even if this resulted in spiraling costs making 10 times as much fuel required, the overal cost of 60 times as much fuel is dwarfed by the savings in laser. >>That said, the new design is pretty stupid as well. Why bother >>using lithium at all? It's going to be a lot harder to develop >>a lithium/hydrogen fusion reactor than a D-D or D-T reactor. >>Why wait an extra hundred years for a lithium/hydrogen fusion >>reactor when you can use D-D or D-T today? At worst, you can >>get interstellar capable Isp levels using MagOrion (H-bombs >>pushing a huge superconducting loop). >D-D or D-T need a tank (one likely to outweigh the unfueled starship), will >boil off into space over the years, and are very rare and expensive. Lithium >is extreamly common and cheap (well under a dollar a pound assuming you >refine medical grade Lithium to Lithum-6), can be chemically bonded with >hydrogen to carry it, and can be used as a structural metal. However the simple fact is that if you can't achieve Lithium-hydrogen fusion, you can't use it. Period. D-D or D-T fusion will be acheived much sooner, probably. >The difficulty of constructing a lithium/hydrogen fusion reactor is >comparativly simple compared to our other technical problems. So its >unlikely to be a major cost or schedule driver. Only if you include the massive cost of that incredible laser. Which is, in the fuel/sail design, THE overriding cost. Nothing else comes close. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Nov 16 15:33 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2884" "Sun" "16" "November" "1997" "17:24:46" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "65" "RE: starship-design: Re: Re: regarding fuel expenditures" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA26849 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 15:33:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA26836 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 15:33:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p24.gnt.com [204.49.68.229]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA00470; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:33:18 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:33:13 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCF2B5.B7377A80.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2883 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Re: regarding fuel expenditures Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:24:46 -0600 On Sunday, November 16, 1997 10:31 AM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > > > That's not the point. The point is that the potential extra benefit > is a ridiculously small amount compared to a percent of c in delta-v. I wouldn't call thirty percent of c without expending ANY onboard fuel ridiculous... > > In fact, the disadvantages are such that they overwhelm any advantage. What disadvantages? Unless you are talking about crewed starships, which I conceded upfront were impractical for this maneuver, there aren't any disadvantages. > > Even without the human limitation, strengthening an unmanned probe > for 400 g's will increase its mass by at least some small fraction. > This will make it require _more_ fuel, not less. Solid state electronics are routinely subjected to far higher accelerations and continue to function quite well thank you. (Instantaneous g forces of over 1,000 g have been successfully withstood.) These were airborne systems designed for aircraft with relatively low payloads. I don't think there is any problem here. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the design criteria for Starwisp, which is the unmanned probe in question here. > It would not be significantly faster. And that's the point. A running head start at 30 percent of c is significant for an unmanned payload unless you can show me that you can accelerate the same payload to the same speed without exceeding the mass of the sail (you can't, the free fuel will get you every time). YOU must include engines AND fuel. Frankly, there is no known drive system capable of doing any more than MATCHING this velocity. That point made... I will agree that 0.3 c is trivial as far as starship velocities go. The only way we are going to get there is with ships capable of crowding c and no sail is ever going to do that with or without humans aboard. There are several promising developments, but I wouldn't characterize them as current technology, perhaps within 50 years though. The reason that Starwisp is important is that it is virtually within our reach NOW, it can put probe through all of the local systems within the next fifty years if we start soon, and they are small and cheap enough that we could literally mass produce them. Without some sort of data on the interstellar medium, and the potential destinations, we could waste a lot of money and lives on useless trips. If we can get a free boost to 0.3 c from the sun for a probe, I don't really care what other sort of drives are available. Lee (o o) ------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo----- ---- PLEASE NOTE: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That When the Consumer Is Not Directly Observing This Product, It May Cease to Exist or Will Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Nov 16 15:33 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1067" "Sun" "16" "November" "1997" "17:32:37" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "31" "RE: The fuelsail is stupid (was starship-design: Hull Materials)" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA26907 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 15:33:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA26868 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 15:33:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p24.gnt.com [204.49.68.229]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA00480; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:33:23 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:33:21 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCF2B5.BBD608E0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1066 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: The fuelsail is stupid (was starship-design: Hull Materials) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:32:37 -0600 On Sunday, November 16, 1997 10:30 AM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > > > >D-D or D-T need a tank (one likely to outweigh the unfueled starship), > >will > >boil off into space over the years, and are very rare and expensive. > > Lithium > >is extreamly common and cheap (well under a dollar a pound assuming you > >refine medical grade Lithium to Lithum-6), can be chemically bonded with > >hydrogen to carry it, and can be used as a structural metal. Actually, a self refrigerating design for D-T using the D-T ice as the _structure_ of the ship has been around for several years > > However the simple fact is that if you can't achieve Lithium-hydrogen > fusion, you can't use it. Period. D-D or D-T fusion will be acheived > much sooner, probably. Yuck, but all those neutrons... > > >The difficulty of constructing a lithium/hydrogen fusion reactor is > >comparativly simple compared to our other technical problems. So its > >unlikely to be a major cost or schedule driver. I think I would prefer waiting for He3 or B11 fusion... Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Nov 16 20:16 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2049" "Sun" "16" "November" "1997" "23:16:15" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "44" "Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: Space Money" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA16883 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:16:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin43.mail.aol.com (mrin43.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.153]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA16860 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:16:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin43.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA12058; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 23:16:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971116231614_-2142805186@mrin43.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2048 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: david@actionworld.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: Space Money Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 23:16:15 -0500 (EST) > Heh, you're right - I didn't even realize my first statement "10 in > perhaps 10 years" was pretty much the same speed as my predictions for > the distant future when I saw Moore's Law kicking in. Oops. > > The second statement, though, of "100 in 50 years" is definately slower > than that, though. If it was the same rate, it would have been "10 in > perhaps 10 years. 100 in 20 years." > > An order of magnitude every ten years for fifty years is, of course, > 10^5, or 100,000 times cheaper than today. That would be pretty cheap > access to space - it would cost $0.10 - $0.20 per pound to launch into > orbit. Cheaper than an airline flight, in fact. Perhaps in a few > centuries... Ah, given current (actully a little dated) tech and a large enough market, you can drop 2-3 orders of magnitude off current launch costs. This would bring launch costs down to the cost of current trans ocean air frieght costs. Given these have similar energy requrements, this isn't unexpected. > On another note, the real Moore's Law says - what? Computing power per > unit cost doubles every two years or something like that? Of course > that means computing power per unit cost increases by 32 times every > decade, right? -- Actually the rate is a little over a factor of 100 per 10 years, and we've been exceeding that rate for decades. > --At least our Space Moore's Law is a little more > conservative, hoping that (whenever it kicks in - IF it ever does) space > travel would become 10 times cheaper every decade. > > I've read one thing about Vinge's Singularity that fascinates me: > assuming no limit anytime in the near future on Moore's Law, imagine a > computer is developed that is as capable and as advanced as a human > brain... Then what comes two years after that? How about two years > after THAT? Technically we already market super computer with more capacity and power then teh human brain (estimated at about 14 tera flop/terabyte) and are doing R&D studies for systems in teh 1,000 Tera flop/byte range. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Nov 16 20:28 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1670" "Sun" "16" "November" "1997" "23:27:30" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "37" "Re: starship-design: A Rocket a Day Keeps the High Costs Away" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA21295 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:28:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin85.mail.aol.com (mrin85.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.195]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA21282 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:28:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin85.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA06444; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 23:27:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971116232729_528096059@mrin85.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1669 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: A Rocket a Day Keeps the High Costs Away Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 23:27:30 -0500 (EST) File: A Rocket a Day Keeps the High Costs Away.url (104 bytes) > This is a page on John Walker's web site. The entire site is interesting > reading but this page is relevant to David and my earlier conversations > about lowering the cost of access to space. > > John makes the case, correctly, that we can lower the cost by a factor of > ten RIGHT NOW, without any significant advancements in technology. He also > points out that this plan is within reach of most of the national aerospace > corporations. There are only two things missing vision and will. Actually neiather of those is a factor. The problem is their no current market for that much launch capacity. The aerospace companies have far better cheaper designs with decades of dust on them, but no buyers. Even the SSTO (also decades old) is having a hard time finding a buyer (NASA balked big time), but the market seems to growing seriously at the moment as new sat clusters aer ready to be launched (hundreds of sats) for the internet and phone markets. > http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html > > Now that we are finally getting some interest in commercial access, we are > about to see a major shift in the corporate balance of power. The Boeings, > and Lockheeds, etc. that continue to milk the cash cow rather than boldly > take the reins in their own hands will suddenly find themselves playing > catch-up in a crowded playing field with limited launch space left. > > Isn't that an entertaining idea? > > Lee There are certainly several stat ups looking to tap into those new markets. We list a couple in the LIT 'library' pages if I remember correctly. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Nov 16 20:39 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3912" "Sun" "16" "November" "1997" "22:39:37" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "91" "Re: starship-design: Re: Re: regarding fuel expenditures" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA25462 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:39:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (mouse.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.46]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA25420 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:39:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA01619; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 22:39:42 -0600 Message-Id: <9711170439.AA01619@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <01BCF2B5.B7377A80.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Nov 16, 97 05:24:46 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3911 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Re: regarding fuel expenditures Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 22:39:37 -0600 (CST) L. Parker wrote: >On Sunday, November 16, 1997 10:31 AM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] >wrote: >> That's not the point. The point is that the potential extra benefit >> is a ridiculously small amount compared to a percent of c in delta-v. >I wouldn't call thirty percent of c without expending ANY onboard fuel >ridiculous... Umm...and the Oberth maneuver around the Sun acheives this how??? I think you mean 1/30 of a percent of c (100km/s). >> In fact, the disadvantages are such that they overwhelm any advantage. >What disadvantages? Unless you are talking about crewed starships, which I >conceded upfront were impractical for this maneuver, there aren't any >disadvantages. The disadvantages are the increased structural strength, and increased heat rejection capability (to deal with solar heating). >> Even without the human limitation, strengthening an unmanned probe >> for 400 g's will increase its mass by at least some small fraction. >> This will make it require _more_ fuel, not less. >Solid state electronics are routinely subjected to far higher accelerations >and continue to function quite well thank you. (Instantaneous g forces of >over 1,000 g have been successfully withstood.) These were airborne systems >designed for aircraft with relatively low payloads. Huh? I know of the electronics for Copperhead warheads which sustain in excess of 10,000gees, but they are artillery shells. However, because of this hardenning Copperhead shells cost 100 times as much per round as Hellfire missiles (which have more range and pack more punch). >I don't think there is >any problem here. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the design criteria for >Starwisp, which is the unmanned probe in question here. Starwisp would get ripped apart by tidal forces if you swung it around the sun. There is a _big_ difference between a tiny little microchip mounted on relatively thick, sturdy, silicon substrate, and a kilometer wide wire mesh thinner than aluminum foil. >> It would not be significantly faster. And that's the point. >A running head start at 30 percent of c is significant for an unmanned >payload unless you can show me that you can accelerate the same payload to >the same speed without exceeding the mass of the sail (you can't, the free >fuel will get you every time). YOU must include engines AND fuel. Sure--look at Starwisp. It will only function if it's launched far from the tidal forces of a planet or the Sun, of course (this should be very obvious). It uses a powerful laser to accelerate, so it doesn't require any on board fuel. [...] >The reason that Starwisp is important is that it is virtually within our >reach NOW, Actually it isn't. It still requires a huge laser which we can't build yet, a kilometer wide sail which we can't design yet, miniaturized electronics which we don't have yet, and a super huge fresnel lens which we can't even begin to design yet. >next fifty years if we start soon, and they are small and cheap enough that >we could literally mass produce them. Without some sort of data on the >interstellar medium, and the potential destinations, we could waste a lot >of money and lives on useless trips. However acheiving this data will require probes like NASA's 1000AU proposal--relatively heavy probes packed with useful sensors. Forward's Starwisp would only transmit low resolution images of the target system as it flew by. Given our advances in telescope technology, it's not clear Starwisp would ever be worth it. >If we can get a free boost to 0.3 c >from the sun for a probe, I don't really care what other sort of drives are >available. Sure, but where in the world do you get this free .3c figure? -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Nov 16 20:58 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5765" "Sun" "16" "November" "1997" "23:58:12" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "130" "Re: Re: The fuelsail is stupid (was starship-design: Hull Materials)" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA01015 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:58:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin52.mail.aol.com (mrin52.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.162]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA00998 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:58:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin52.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA08341; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 23:58:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971116235811_-1607580981@mrin52.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 5764 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: The fuelsail is stupid (was starship-design: Hull Materials) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 23:58:12 -0500 (EST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 11/15/97 5:31:48 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>>The fuelsail concept is stupid. The reason is that if it is possible to >>>build such a thing with one's technology, it is much easier to build >>>a variant of it--and probably a straight fusion rocket would _greatly_ >>>outperform it. [...] >>>So there you have it. If the fuel/sail concept is even possible, >>>there is no good reason to do it. Even if the scoop I mentionned >>>weighed 10 _times_ as much as the payload, you'll probably save >>>in the cost of the laser more than you'll save in the cost of the >>>lithium. >>The concept you outlined is a mild variation of my Explorer class. >I'm aware of this. However, I explained in detail why this specific >modification of a theoretical fuel/sail design would be better. >>I'E. the >>ship accelerates out using onboard fuel or fuel delivered to it as is needed. >> (for safty carrying the full decel fuel load from the start.) >In this design I assume that the ship itself has to maneuver in order >to catch the fuel packages. I assume this requires 50% more fuel >just to catch the fuel packages! And I assume the scoop used weighs >as much as the rest of the payload! > >This increases the fuel requirements by a factor of 6. > >However, considering the laser's cost is reduced by a factor of 100, >it's easily worth it. Consider that the laser will weigh many >magnitudes more than the fueled starship in the fuel/sail design. Two assumptions I'm not comfortable with. One: given the major delta V requirements for manuvers to intercept fuel ships, assuming they are close enough together that the mainship could intercept them (were talking about fractions of light speed and potentially light minutes of lateral drift. Two: the power savings of the laser array might be minimal. The need to intercept with the followon fuel 'ships' kinda forces you to use far higher boost rates so you get up to speed closer to sol, and fusion motors with higher thrust to boost faster. Also since the fuel and ship have to meet at nearly the same speed and position (at least within 1% or less) the fuel will need to be launched at the same time the ship boosts out. Since your talking about the same total weight, 'sailing' out at about the same time as fuel/sail (but with far greater delta-V needs and dry weight for the ship) your likely to have similar power requirements for the launcher masers as a fuel sail boosting at the same rate. But fuel/sail doesn't need to boost out at the same rate since it doesn't need to do its bosting (and the fuel intercepts) close to the sol system. All in all, I'ld expect fuel sail to use less maser power to boost out. > ... >>Given all that it seemed far simpler and safer to use the fuel as the >>acceleration sail for the ship. > It costs and weighs 100 times as much as this alternative. And that's > assuming the scoop needed weighs an incredible amount and an incredible >amount of fuel is wasted making fuel intercepts by moving the entire > ship. That weight and power savings seems unlikely. >>The expence of the launching maser platforms >>is considerable, but the power levels and fusion motor needed are less, >>acceleration can take place over longer times, and you don't need any precise >>intercepts. > >The power level of the maser platform is _much_ higher than anything > else in the entire system. What in the world in the entire starship > system has comparable power levels? I was reffering to the power needs of the maser launcher platforms, and those of the fusion boost motor. > Assuming the new design requires a scoop which weighs as much as the > entire payload, the fusion motor only needs to be twice as powerful. The higher acceleration rates needed by the main ship would probably require the motor be scaled up more than that. >--- >>>That said, the new design is pretty stupid as well. Why bother >>>using lithium at all? It's going to be a lot harder to develop >>>a lithium/hydrogen fusion reactor than a D-D or D-T reactor. >>>Why wait an extra hundred years for a lithium/hydrogen fusion >>>reactor when you can use D-D or D-T today? At worst, you can >>>get interstellar capable Isp levels using MagOrion (H-bombs >>>pushing a huge superconducting loop). >>D-D or D-T need a tank (one likely to outweigh the unfueled starship), will >>boil off into space over the years, and are very rare and expensive. Lithium >>is extreamly common and cheap (well under a dollar a pound assuming you >>refine medical grade Lithium to Lithum-6), can be chemically bonded with >>hydrogen to carry it, and can be used as a structural metal. > However the simple fact is that if you can't achieve Lithium-hydrogen > fusion, you can't use it. Period. D-D or D-T fusion will be acheived > much sooner, probably. Possibly, but the development time can be accelerated considferably given a R&D budget. Given the needs of this project would require a huge budget, the funds to develop a fusion system to our needs would be trivial. Given the ship would require tens of millions of tons of decel fuel, the fuel cost savings of Lithium-6 + P, over D-D or D-T (not to mention the relative unavaliblity of the later fuels) could easily pay for the development of the better reactors. Hence my comment: >>The difficulty of constructing a lithium/hydrogen fusion reactor is >>comparativly simple compared to our other technical problems. So its >>unlikely to be a major cost or schedule driver. Oh I agree by the way that the cost of the maser stations to boost the ship out would be the dominent cost factor of a maser sail systems, but don't think you variation would reduce that. -- _____ Isaac Kuo Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 17 04:52 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["8589" "Mon" "17" "November" "1997" "06:52:29" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "191" "Re: Re: The fuelsail is stupid (was starship-design: Hull Materials)" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA14991 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 04:52:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (mouse.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.46]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id EAA14986 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 04:52:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00277; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 06:52:31 -0600 Message-Id: <9711171252.AA00277@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <971116235811_-1607580981@mrin52.mail.aol.com> from "KellySt@aol.com" at Nov 16, 97 11:58:12 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 8588 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: Re: The fuelsail is stupid (was starship-design: Hull Materials) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 06:52:29 -0600 (CST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>In a message dated 11/15/97 5:31:48 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>>>So there you have it. If the fuel/sail concept is even possible, >>>>there is no good reason to do it. Even if the scoop I mentionned >>>>weighed 10 _times_ as much as the payload, you'll probably save >>>>in the cost of the laser more than you'll save in the cost of the >>>>lithium. >>In this design I assume that the ship itself has to maneuver in order >>to catch the fuel packages. I assume this requires 50% more fuel >>just to catch the fuel packages! And I assume the scoop used weighs >>as much as the rest of the payload! >>This increases the fuel requirements by a factor of 6. >>However, considering the laser's cost is reduced by a factor of 100, >>it's easily worth it. Consider that the laser will weigh many >>magnitudes more than the fueled starship in the fuel/sail design. >Two assumptions I'm not comfortable with. One: given the major delta V >requirements for manuvers to intercept fuel ships, assuming they are close >enough together that the mainship could intercept them (were talking about >fractions of light speed and potentially light minutes of lateral drift. So what? The amount of fuel expense I assume would be enough to handle light _days_ of lateral maneuvering. Remember that this ship is using an entire 1/3 of its fuel capacity in order to make the 200 intercepts. To a rough degree, this allows 4/400 light years of maneuvering (assuming the design target system is Alpha Centauri, 4 light years away). I am assuming what I consider to be absolutely obviously worse than would ever be the case. >Two: the power savings of the laser array might be minimal. Wrong. The power required is proportional to the mass of the sailships. >intercept with the followon fuel 'ships' kinda forces you to use far higher >boost rates so you get up to speed closer to sol, and fusion motors with >higher thrust to boost faster. Why are higher boost rates required? Because of diffraction limits, you need to boost with the laser near sol to begin with. Besides, even if we assume the boost rate needs to be 10 _times_ as much, the new design is _still_ only about 10% of the cost of the original. The fusion motors already need to be relatively high thrust in order to complete the deceleration run in a reasonable amount of time. I doubt any increased thrust requirement is going to increase the payload mass by more than 100% more (the assumed increased payload mass including the scoop). You have to show that these factors some how add up to making it cost at least 50 times as much before the original fuel/sail design becomes competitive. >Also since the fuel and ship have to meet at >nearly the same speed and position (at least within 1% or less) the fuel will >need to be launched at the same time the ship boosts out. In this design I do assume the fuel and ship need to meet at around the same velocity. I also assume the intercept is accomplished entirely using the ship's maneuvering (which is ridiculous, of course). That is why I assume the ship blows such outrageous amounts of fuel making those intercepts. However, the fuel does _not_ need to be launched at exactly the same time as the ship. If we assume Starwisp like acceleration runs with the laser, 200 shots will take about 400 weeks. Since the laser isn't used to power the ship, these can start before and during the ship's acceleration run. (The ship catches up with the shots fired before/during the acceleration run; the shots fired afterward catch up with the ship.) If half of the shots are shot before and half afterward, they'll only be about 200 weeks off. I would continue with back-of-the-envelope calculations to show you that these fuel shots could be intercepted for far less than the amount of fuel I describe, but now that I think about it it isn't worth it, because you probably will simply dismiss it without even conjuring up a single rough number estimate to back your claims up. Kelly, if you want to talk numbers, then this argument can go further. It's all about overall cost. I have made a bold claim--that the modified design is about 1% the cost of the original fuel/sail design. I've given at least rough calculations to show why. If you want to dismiss my argument, do it with NUMBERS. >Since your talking about the same total weight, 'sailing' out at >about the same time as fuel/sail (but with far greater delta-V >needs and dry weight for the ship) No, the total weight in the modified design is 6 times as much as the weight before. Pay attention. As I recall from the discussion of the acceleration/deceleration track ramjet design, you show difficulty paying attention. >But fuel/sail doesn't need to boost out >at the same rate since it doesn't need to do its bosting (and the fuel >intercepts) close to the sol system. Actually it does require acceleration close to sol because of diffraction limits. How close? You tell me how big you want the huge honking laser's lens to be, and what frequency it's using. >All in all, I'ld expect fuel sail to use less maser power to boost out. Back it up with some numbers. I don't ask for precise ones, just rough guestimates. >>>The expence of the launching maser platforms >>>is considerable, but the power levels and fusion motor needed are less, >>>acceleration can take place over longer times, and you don't need any >precise >>>intercepts. >>The power level of the maser platform is _much_ higher than anything >> else in the entire system. What in the world in the entire starship >> system has comparable power levels? >I was reffering to the power needs of the maser launcher platforms, and those >of the fusion boost motor. Okay. But if you really did _any_ numbers on this design, you'd see that the power levels of the masers were _much_ higher than that of the fusion motor. Really, this should be quite obvious. If the on board fusion reactor produced about the same power level as the masers, then it could be used directly to power a laser in order to make the deceleration run (and/or the acceleration run). But that's completely ludicrous. >> Assuming the new design requires a scoop which weighs as much as the >> entire payload, the fusion motor only needs to be twice as powerful. >The higher acceleration rates needed by the main ship would probably require >the motor be scaled up more than that. How much more? >>>D-D or D-T need a tank (one likely to outweigh the unfueled starship), will >>>boil off into space over the years, and are very rare and expensive. > Lithium >>>is extreamly common and cheap (well under a dollar a pound assuming you >>>refine medical grade Lithium to Lithum-6), can be chemically bonded with >>>hydrogen to carry it, and can be used as a structural metal. >> However the simple fact is that if you can't achieve Lithium-hydrogen >> fusion, you can't use it. Period. D-D or D-T fusion will be acheived >> much sooner, probably. >Possibly, but the development time can be accelerated considferably given a >R&D budget. Given the needs of this project would require a huge budget, the >funds to develop a fusion system to our needs would be trivial. That's not the way science works. You don't just funnel in money, and get results proportional to your money. No matter how much you spend, R&D requires experiments which take a certain amount of time to accomplish. And even then there's no guarantee of success. The fact is that we could build a vehicle powered primarily by D-D reactions _today_ (a crude Orion rocket). Within 10 or 20 years, we could even do a pretty good job of it (a refined MagOrion). By the time we can even consider a manned interstellar mission, it should be easy technology. The fact is that there is no telling how long it would take to power something with lithium fusion, no matter how much money is spent researching it. How long do you think it will take, assuming we spend 100 billion dollars a year on fusion research specifically aimed at acheiving lithium fusion? Rough estimate? Ten years? 100 years? 500 years? >Oh I agree by the way that the cost of the maser stations to boost the ship >out would be the dominent cost factor of a maser sail systems, but don't >think you variation would reduce that. Back it up with some numbers. Just rough guestimates. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 17 06:19 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1177" "Mon" "17" "November" "1997" "09:15:08" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "28" "starship-design: RE: Moore's Law & Vinge's Singularity" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA02721 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 06:19:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA02709 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 06:19:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:15:09 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 1176 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: RE: Moore's Law & Vinge's Singularity Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:15:08 -0500 Yeah, this is kind of what I was talking about - not that we're using "Space Moore's Law" right now - after all, we really have not cheapened access to space anytime recently. Rather, I'm hoping that once we get to a certain point (which may take a while) then space technology will enter a positive feedback loop and just keep getting cheaper and cheaper faster and faster. ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. > ---------- > From: L. Parker[SMTP:lparker@cacaphony.net] > Now there is a way to shortcut this equation. At some point, heavy > lift > access to the surface of the Earth becomes irrelevant. Space based > industry, once established can produce far superior products than can > be > manufactured on Earth and probably do it for less money given the > availability of almost free power. So it may be sufficient to level or > > taper off at two or three magnitudes reduction in cost for planet to > space > access. > > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 17 06:25 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1839" "Mon" "17" "November" "1997" "07:19:37" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "46" "RE: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: Space Money" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA03422 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 06:25:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA03417 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 06:25:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p34.gnt.com [204.49.68.239]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA00073; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:24:59 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:24:55 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCF332.48E346E0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1838 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'KellySt@aol.com'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: Space Money Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 07:19:37 -0600 On Sunday, November 16, 1997 10:16 PM, KellySt@aol.com [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: > > Ah, given current (actully a little dated) tech and a large enough market, > you can drop 2-3 orders of magnitude off current launch costs. This > would > bring launch costs down to the cost of current trans ocean air frieght > costs. > Given these have similar energy requrements, this isn't unexpected. > > You are quite right. It is actually more a matter of economics and scale than it is technology. The paper I posted from John Walker goes into this pretty thoroughly. The commercial space transportation survey conducted several years ago, might disagree with his conclusions somewhat though. Of approximately 70 surveys sent to Silicon Valley biotech companies, over 90 percent were not returned at all, the remainder indicated no plans to use space manufacturing at all (despite the obvious benefits of doing so). The authors concluded (somewhat wishfully I think) that it was a public rela tions problem rather than a real lack of need. NASA has drawn up a plan similar to the one proposed by John Walker. Of course they used a brand new booster, etc. and launch costs per pound are predicted to be $9,000 or more. Let me get this straight - they propose a massive launch program of small cargoes to bring down launch costs, but the best they can do is $9,000 per pound? Naturally, it will never work... They did a fairly rigorous market analysis though that showed that only 20 launches a year should drop the cost to around $300 per pound. Lee (o o) ------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo----- ---- Up the airy mountain, Down the rushy glen, We daren't go a-hunting For fear of little men; William Allingham, Ireland, 1850 From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 17 06:25 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3625" "Mon" "17" "November" "1997" "08:13:36" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "88" "RE: starship-design: Re: Re: regarding fuel expenditures" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA03463 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 06:25:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA03456 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 06:25:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p34.gnt.com [204.49.68.239]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA00100; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:25:06 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:25:01 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCF332.4CA000C0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 3624 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Re: regarding fuel expenditures Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:13:36 -0600 On Sunday, November 16, 1997 10:40 PM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > I think you mean 1/30 of a percent of c (100km/s). What, you think I am trying to go to Mars? > The disadvantages are the increased structural strength, and increased > heat rejection capability (to deal with solar heating). No, it was fairly explicit, a crewed ship would be limited by its acceleration to a final cruise velocity of 0.003 c (Matloff & Mallove, JBIS, 1981 & 1983 also Ehricke, JBIS, 1972) and Icarus, with a 1 km sail would attain 0.012 c without any additional boost from beamed power (Eshleman, Science, 1979). Forward actually proposed a combination of the Perihelion maneuver and beamed power to reach the 0.03 c figure. Beamed power alone pushed Starwisp to 0.20 c in a few days. Starwisp is designed from the start to withstand hundreds of g's acceleration and these figures take it into account (Forward, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 1985). As for thermal shielding see Ehricke, JBIS, 1972. > Huh? I know of the electronics for Copperhead warheads which sustain > in excess of 10,000gees, but they are artillery shells. However, > because of this hardenning Copperhead shells cost 100 times as much > per round as Hellfire missiles (which have more range and pack > more punch). Umm, you'll just have to take my word for this one, the systems are still classified. > Starwisp would get ripped apart by tidal forces if you swung it > around the sun. There is a _big_ difference between a tiny > little microchip mounted on relatively thick, sturdy, silicon > substrate, and a kilometer wide wire mesh thinner than aluminum > foil. Again, Forward's design allowed for this. Rightly or wrongly, I don't have the time or the inclination to second guess his engineering. > It uses a powerful laser to accelerate, > so it doesn't require any on board fuel. No, it uses a microwave beam from a power satellite to accelerate, NOT a laser. > Actually it isn't. It still requires a huge laser which we can't > build yet, a kilometer wide sail which we can't design yet, > miniaturized electronics which we don't have yet, and a super > huge fresnel lens which we can't even begin to design yet. Okay, so I was stretching that part a little bit that was why I said VIRTUALLY though. BTW, Starwisp doesn't use a fresnel lens either. You are confusing your designs... > However achieving this data will require probes like NASA's 1000AU > proposal--relatively heavy probes packed with useful sensors. Which interestingly enough will probably use fusion thrusters... > Forward's Starwisp would only transmit low resolution images of > the target system as it flew by. Given our advances in telescope > technology, it's not clear Starwisp would ever be worth it. Conceded, on this point you are completely correct. IF the only thing Starwisp can do is relay back images, we can probably do better with telescopes. Isaac, I am not defending sails, I prefer fusion or antimatter powered engines actually. But sails do have some usefulness and most of this argument was settled almost 20 years ago. This is OLD information. If you don't believe me, go to the Advanced Propulsion Concepts conference at JPL next March. I believe there are SEVERAL papers being presented on advanced solar sail concepts. Lee (o o) ------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo----- ---- Up the airy mountain, Down the rushy glen, We daren't go a-hunting For fear of little men; William Allingham, Ireland, 1850 From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 17 06:38 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1679" "Mon" "17" "November" "1997" "09:34:02" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "41" "RE: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: Space Money" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA06254 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 06:38:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA06249 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 06:38:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:34:03 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 1678 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: Space Money Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:34:02 -0500 I found this in the Extropian FAQ: === The brain has something like 10^11 neurons with 10^3 synapses each with a peak firing rate of 10^3 Hz, for a raw bit rate of 10^17 bits/sec. A 66 MHz, 64-bit chip has a raw bit rate of 4.2x10^9. You can buy about 100 complete PC's for the cost of one engineer, giving you about 4x10^11 bits/sec, or about a factor of a million less than a human brain. The performance/price ratio of computers has been doubling every two years or so, and that rate has been pretty constant since ENIAC, so we expect that in about 40 years, the total amount of brain-power available (human + computer) will take a rapid jump upward. There is some concern that we are nearing some fundamental limits to semiconductor technology, although recent price/performance changes are exceeding the historical trend. Limits to the power of an individual processor can be largely overcome via parallel processing. === On another note, there are some alternative technologies for making chips around the corner which may help prevent us hitting the "wall". http://news.uk.msn.com/news/5242.asp ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. > ---------- > From: KellySt@aol.com[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] > Technically we already market super computer with more capacity and > power > then teh human brain (estimated at about 14 tera flop/terabyte) and > are doing > R&D studies for systems in teh 1,000 Tera flop/byte range. > > Kelly > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 17 09:15 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6708" "Mon" "17" "November" "1997" "11:15:06" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "156" "Re: starship-design: Re: Re: regarding fuel expenditures" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA08321 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:15:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (mouse.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.46]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA08245 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:15:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00551; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:15:15 -0600 Message-Id: <9711171715.AA00551@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <01BCF332.4CA000C0.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Nov 17, 97 08:13:36 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 6707 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Re: regarding fuel expenditures Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:15:06 -0600 (CST) L. Parker wrote: >On Sunday, November 16, 1997 10:40 PM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] >wrote: >> I think you mean 1/30 of a percent of c (100km/s). >What, you think I am trying to go to Mars? No, I was just trying to get it nearer a realistic value. >> The disadvantages are the increased structural strength, and increased >> heat rejection capability (to deal with solar heating). >No, it was fairly explicit, a crewed ship would be limited by its >acceleration to a final cruise velocity of 0.003 c (Matloff & Mallove, >JBIS, 1981 & 1983 also Ehricke, JBIS, 1972) and Icarus, with a 1 km sail >would attain 0.012 c without any additional boost from beamed power >(Eshleman, Science, 1979). Forward actually proposed a combination of the >Perihelion maneuver and beamed power to reach the 0.03 c figure. You mean .3c, of course. And this _requires_ the use of a high power laser (yes, a coherent microwave beam is a microwave laser). Your e-mail suggested that the .3c was "for free" just from the maneuver around the Sun. Of course, it isn't. >Beamed power alone pushed Starwisp to 0.20 c in a few days. Forward's proposal would take 2 weeks, which I wouldn't call "a few days". >Starwisp is designed >from the start to withstand hundreds of g's acceleration and these figures >take it into account (Forward, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 1985). As >for thermal shielding see Ehricke, JBIS, 1972. Actually, it is proposed to withstand 100 gees. There is no attempt by Forward to demonstrate how this could be acheived. Theoretically, negligible structural strength is required so long as the laser pushes absolutely evenly across the entire 1km of the Starwisp. In practice, even the slightest error (which realistically there will be) will rip apart the Starwisp as soon as the beam is turned on. You must realize that none of these proposals are complete, and pretty much all of Forward's proposals have huge gaping holes. At first, he proposed using a ring of microwave beams emitting in phase in order to acheive the aperture needed using VLBI. Obviously, he didn't know that it wouldn't work. Later he came up with the fresnel lens concept, which would work (but reduce beam power by about 50%). He never bothered with the engineering difficulties of making and stabalizing such a huge fresnel lens, though. >> Huh? I know of the electronics for Copperhead warheads which sustain >> in excess of 10,000gees, but they are artillery shells. However, >> because of this hardenning Copperhead shells cost 100 times as much >> per round as Hellfire missiles (which have more range and pack >> more punch). >Umm, you'll just have to take my word for this one, the systems are still >classified. Not all data is classified. The costs of these these things are often reported in news reports and AvLeak articles. For instance, you've probably heard a gazillion times how much a Tomohawk cruise missile costs, seeing as they mention it every time they get used. >> Starwisp would get ripped apart by tidal forces if you swung it >> around the sun. There is a _big_ difference between a tiny >> little microchip mounted on relatively thick, sturdy, silicon >> substrate, and a kilometer wide wire mesh thinner than aluminum >> foil. >Again, Forward's design allowed for this. Rightly or wrongly, I don't have >the time or the inclination to second guess his engineering. No it didn't. He just didn't bother with that part of it. He also didn't bother with figuring out how much the Starwisp would get heated by the laser, which is an even more basic issue. >> It uses a powerful laser to accelerate, >> so it doesn't require any on board fuel. >No, it uses a microwave beam from a power satellite to accelerate, NOT a >laser. It is a coherent microwave laser. >> Actually it isn't. It still requires a huge laser which we can't >> build yet, a kilometer wide sail which we can't design yet, >> miniaturized electronics which we don't have yet, and a super >> huge fresnel lens which we can't even begin to design yet. >Okay, so I was stretching that part a little bit that was why I said >VIRTUALLY though. BTW, Starwisp doesn't use a fresnel lens either. You are >confusing your designs... Umm...yes it needs a fresnel lens. It's huge multi-kilometer diameter fresnel lens made up of consentric rings of reflective material. >> However achieving this data will require probes like NASA's 1000AU >> proposal--relatively heavy probes packed with useful sensors. >Which interestingly enough will probably use fusion thrusters... No, it uses a fission reactor powering an ion rocket. This is an actual _proposal_, which you can see on NASA's web page. In other words, something they could actually build and fly, if given the funding. >Isaac, I am not defending sails, I prefer fusion or antimatter powered >engines actually. But sails do have some usefulness and most of this >argument was settled almost 20 years ago. I'm not attacking sails--however I am pointing out that the additional boost you could get with a solar flyby for an inter_stellar_ mission is not ever going to be worth it. Such a sail will need to be powered by one of: 1. Laser 2. Particle beam 3. Nuclear bomb track Whereas the small additional help a solar boost could give is far outweighed by the disadvantages. >This is OLD information. If you >don't believe me, go to the Advanced Propulsion Concepts conference at JPL >next March. I believe there are SEVERAL papers being presented on advanced >solar sail concepts. A solar sail is _extremely_ different from a powered sail. The thing about a solar sail, which has great potential for interplanetary missions, is that they need virtually no structural strength beyond that needed to keep them from wrinkling up due to vibrations (of the payload). They are micro-gee devices that absorb a pretty small amount of heat due to the Sun. A powered sail, OTOH, is really only applicable to interstellar missions (or as anti-vehicular weapons). For interplanetary missions, laser powered rockets will vastly outperform laser powered sails in almost every aspect. For interstellar missions, you need maybe 10% c to make it worthwhile. Because of diffraction limitations, you are limited to accelerating over several weeks, so you need very high acceleration levels. This means the sail needs to be able to withstand and stay "flat" while under dozens of gees as well as worry about being heated by the laser. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 17 09:34 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["952" "Mon" "17" "November" "1997" "12:30:40" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "23" "RE: starship-design: Re: Re: regarding fuel expenditures" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA18852 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:34:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA18792 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:34:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:30:42 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 951 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Re: regarding fuel expenditures Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:30:40 -0500 This is also somewhere on one of the LIT pages I believe. TAU is meant to travel 20 AU per year using a 150 kW fission reactor and xenon as reaction mass for the ion stream. ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. > ---------- > From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu[SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] > >> However achieving this data will require probes like NASA's 1000AU > >> proposal--relatively heavy probes packed with useful sensors. > > >Which interestingly enough will probably use fusion thrusters... > > No, it uses a fission reactor powering an ion rocket. This is an > actual _proposal_, which you can see on NASA's web page. In other > words, something they could actually build and fly, if given the > funding. > > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 17 09:51 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1852" "Mon" "17" "November" "1997" "12:51:20" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "45" "Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: Space Money" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA28907 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:51:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin53.mail.aol.com (mrin53.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.163]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA28843 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:51:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin53.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id MAA01381; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:51:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971117125118_-1508181041@mrin53.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1851 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: Space Money Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:51:20 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/17/97 8:25:20 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >On Sunday, November 16, 1997 10:16 PM, KellySt@aol.com >[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: >> >> Ah, given current (actully a little dated) tech and a large enough >market, >> you can drop 2-3 orders of magnitude off current launch costs. This >> would >> bring launch costs down to the cost of current trans ocean air frieght >> costs. >> Given these have similar energy requrements, this isn't unexpected. >> >> >You are quite right. It is actually more a matter of economics and scale >than it is technology. The paper I posted from John Walker goes into this >pretty thoroughly. > >The commercial space transportation survey conducted several years ago, >might disagree with his conclusions somewhat though. Of approximately 70 >surveys sent to Silicon Valley biotech companies, over 90 percent were not >returned at all, the remainder indicated no plans to use space >manufacturing at all (despite the obvious benefits of doing so). The >authors concluded (somewhat wishfully I think) that it was a public rela >tions problem rather than a real lack of need. > >NASA has drawn up a plan similar to the one proposed by John Walker. Of >course they used a brand new booster, etc. and launch costs per pound are >predicted to be $9,000 or more. Let me get this straight - they propose a >massive launch program of small cargoes to bring down launch costs, but the >best they can do is $9,000 per pound? Naturally, it will never work... > >They did a fairly rigorous market analysis though that showed that only 20 >launches a year should drop the cost to around $300 per pound. > >Lee True I've seen far better numbers out of McDonnel Douglas' internal market studies. But then NASA HQ does really beleve their is any potential market for many launches. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 17 09:52 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["748" "Mon" "17" "November" "1997" "12:51:23" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "20" "Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: Space Money" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA29029 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:51:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin58.mail.aol.com (mrin58.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.168]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA28970 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:51:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin58.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id MAA08755; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:51:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971117125120_-1173035185@mrin58.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 747 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: david@actionworld.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: starship-design: Space Money Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:51:23 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/17/97 8:38:44 AM, david@actionworld.com wrote: >The brain has something like 10^11 neurons with 10^3 synapses each with >a peak firing rate of 10^3 Hz, for a raw bit rate of 10^17 bits/sec. Last numbers I read were about that number of nurons but less synapses per. Also the actual number firing rates don't add up to all synapses firing all the time. Nural nets dont seem to work that way. Guven the total number of firings per sec, and assuming every firing was about the same as 1 64 bit word, they figured about 10^12 -10^13 (can't remeber which) bytes per secound. Confortably inside te range of the bigest terabyte/flop super computers. So Hals brain is here on schedule for 2001, but no software. :( Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 17 09:52 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["15172" "Mon" "17" "November" "1997" "12:51:31" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "325" "Re: Re: Re: The fuelsail is stupid (was starship-design: Hull Materials)" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA29151 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:52:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin85.mail.aol.com (mrin85.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.195]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA29088 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:52:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin85.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id MAA07666; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:51:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971117125128_-1206815280@mrin85.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 15171 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: The fuelsail is stupid (was starship-design: Hull Materials) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:51:31 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/17/97 6:53:05 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>>In a message dated 11/15/97 5:31:48 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: > >>>>>So there you have it. If the fuel/sail concept is even possible, >>>>>there is no good reason to do it. Even if the scoop I mentionned >>>>>weighed 10 _times_ as much as the payload, you'll probably save >>>>>in the cost of the laser more than you'll save in the cost of the >>>>>lithium. > >>>In this design I assume that the ship itself has to maneuver in order >>>to catch the fuel packages. I assume this requires 50% more fuel >>>just to catch the fuel packages! And I assume the scoop used weighs >>>as much as the rest of the payload! > >>>This increases the fuel requirements by a factor of 6. > >>>However, considering the laser's cost is reduced by a factor of 100, >>>it's easily worth it. Consider that the laser will weigh many >>>magnitudes more than the fueled starship in the fuel/sail design. > >>Two assumptions I'm not comfortable with. One: given the major delta V >>requirements for manuvers to intercept fuel ships, assuming they are close >>enough together that the mainship could intercept them (were talking about >>fractions of light speed and potentially light minutes of lateral drift. > >So what? The amount of fuel expense I assume would be enough to handle >light _days_ of lateral maneuvering. Remember that this ship is >using an entire 1/3 of its fuel capacity in order to make the 200 >intercepts. To a rough degree, this allows 4/400 light years of >maneuvering (assuming the design target system is Alpha Centauri, >4 light years away). > >I am assuming what I consider to be absolutely obviously worse than >would ever be the case. I'm not clear how many fuel packets you expect to launch. Presumably hundreds. If each on average requires a 1% delta-v (and the worst delta-vs will likely be the last ones launched to catch the ship at is max intercept range) you could be talking about acceling and deceling the ship more then ne ssisary to reach cruse speed. The alternat is an extensive beaming systems (and support power systems) to steer the packets to the main ship. fuel consuption to beam the fuel ships to a docking could take as much as the acceleration fuel for the ship, and be more complicated. >>Two: the power savings of the laser array might be minimal. > >Wrong. The power required is proportional to the mass of the sailships. You have to send the same mass of sail ships, since it still must total up to the same mass of fuel. More if your assuming loses, fuel consuption for catching the fuel by the ship, and extra guidence and structure for the separte sailships as apposed to the major fuel sail. >>intercept with the followon fuel 'ships' kinda forces you to use far higher >>boost rates so you get up to speed closer to sol, and fusion motors with >>higher thrust to boost faster. > >Why are higher boost rates required? Because of diffraction limits, >you need to boost with the laser near sol to begin with. Since the ship has to get up to speed, and do all its intercepts pretty close to sol, it has to boost harder to do all that in the shorter distence. I.E. it has to launch under pure fusion thrust while the maser arrays are launching hundreds of sailships to intercept. Since the intercepts have to be pretty precise, you want to do them close to the systems where accuracy limits of the systems and time delays for corrects are minimized. Defraction limits of the maser (not laser) arry should be a factor for a light year or two given I was assuming a ring of maser transmitters 2 AU across. Given that fuel sail just needs to find the beam, rather then keep precise speeds and positions, it should be less sensative to fluctuations in beam density. >Besides, even if we assume the boost rate needs to be 10 _times_ as >much, the new design is _still_ only about 10% of the cost of the >original. How do you figure? The ship is boosting under fusion power, while the maser arrays are launching the fuel in the sailships. Since it has to launch the sailships (which weight at least 400 times as much as the ship) at higher accelerations then fuel sail would (Explorer assumed a 1 G boost to shorten the distences) why would it need less power? >The fusion motors already need to be relatively high thrust in order to >complete the deceleration run in a reasonable amount of time. I doubt >any increased thrust requirement is going to increase the payload mass >by more than 100% more (the assumed increased payload mass including >the scoop). > >You have to show that these factors some how add up to making it cost >at least 50 times as much before the original fuel/sail design becomes >competitive. I don't have the mass numbers with me and don't have time to check the nubers on the web page ( I'm rushed to answer this before leaving town today), but as I remember fuel/sail would only boost at a 1/10th g at full fuel load, compared to Explorer. The engines were much lighter (but still were about as heavy as the unfueld ship, far more then the cargo), so the high fuel ratios and 30% higher cruse speeds were possible. >>Also since the fuel and ship have to meet at >>nearly the same speed and position (at least within 1% or less) the fuel will >>need to be launched at the same time the ship boosts out. > >In this design I do assume the fuel and ship need to meet at around >the same velocity. I also assume the intercept is accomplished entirely >using the ship's maneuvering (which is ridiculous, of course). That >is why I assume the ship blows such outrageous amounts of fuel making >those intercepts. > >However, the fuel does _not_ need to be launched at exactly the same >time as the ship. If we assume Starwisp like acceleration runs with the >laser, 200 shots will take about 400 weeks. Since the laser isn't used >to power the ship, these can start before and during the ship's >acceleration run. (The ship catches up with the shots fired >before/during the acceleration run; the shots fired afterward catch up >with the ship.) If half of the shots are shot before and half >afterward, they'll only be about 200 weeks off. 200 weeks!? 4 years! That would spreed the fuel out over more then 1.5 light years. It would take the ship years to catch up to all that, during which time they could drift light months laterally in all all directions, and you might not ever be able to find the fuel packats over that much range unless they had huge becons and stayed almost perfectly on course. Since the ships max speed is about .4c. Unless the fuel is launched in a close group at nearly the same time as the ship, they would drift too far apart for the ship to find and pick up. Also since they need to intercept at near identical speeds, and distences, they have to start out at about the same time. (I'm not clear what your assuming for the acceleration rates for the two types of ships). This would require everthing be launched at about the same time. Probably about the same total maser time as fuel sail launching about the same mass. I was assuming the total boost time for an explorer would be limited to 3-4 month to keep the distences down, and fuel sail could take a year or two to boost. If you assume the maser time is 4 years to boost the sailships (which have to weight about the same amount as the fuel sail ship) they would need about half to 1/4th the total power per month of beam time (i.e. same total mass launched to about the same speed but spread over twice to max 4 times as long), not 1/100th. >I would continue with back-of-the-envelope calculations to show you >that these fuel shots could be intercepted for far less than the >amount of fuel I describe, but now that I think about it it isn't >worth it, because you probably will simply dismiss it without even >conjuring up a single rough number estimate to back your claims up. > >Kelly, if you want to talk numbers, then this argument can go further. >It's all about overall cost. I have made a bold claim--that the >modified design is about 1% the cost of the original fuel/sail design. >I've given at least rough calculations to show why. If you want >to dismiss my argument, do it with NUMBERS. Numbers aer fairly meaningless if you don't explain the concept they relate to. I still have no idea why you thing maser launching the same mass over 2-4 times the amount of time (and I debate that assumption hotly) will only take 1/100th the power? >>Since your talking about the same total weight, 'sailing' out at >>about the same time as fuel/sail (but with far greater delta-V >>needs and dry weight for the ship) > >No, the total weight in the modified design is 6 times as much as >the weight before. Pay attention. As I recall from the discussion >of the acceleration/deceleration track ramjet design, you show >difficulty paying attention. No just dificulting figureing out what your talking about. Judgeing from your comments above, you are similarly confused about my concepts. >>But fuel/sail doesn't need to boost out >>at the same rate since it doesn't need to do its bosting (and the fuel >>intercepts) close to the sol system. > >Actually it does require acceleration close to sol because of >diffraction limits. How close? You tell me how big you want >the huge honking laser's lens to be, and what frequency it's >using. The maser array is about 2 AU in diameter. I.E. its a ring around the sun about the same diameter as earth orbit. Closer in gives lighter power sats, but worse resulotion. >>All in all, I'ld expect fuel sail to use less maser power to boost out. > >Back it up with some numbers. I don't ask for precise ones, just >rough guestimates. See above. >>>>The expence of the launching maser platforms >>>>is considerable, but the power levels and fusion motor needed are less, >>>>acceleration can take place over longer times, and you don't need any >>precise >>>>intercepts. > >>>The power level of the maser platform is _much_ higher than anything >>> else in the entire system. What in the world in the entire starship >>> system has comparable power levels? > >>I was reffering to the power needs of the maser launcher platforms, and those >>of the fusion boost motor. > >Okay. But if you really did _any_ numbers on this design, you'd see >that the power levels of the masers were _much_ higher than that of >the fusion motor. > >Really, this should be quite obvious. If the on board fusion reactor >produced about the same power level as the masers, then it could >be used directly to power a laser in order to make the deceleration >run (and/or the acceleration run). But that's completely ludicrous. ??! The fusion motor has to decelerat the loaded ship at a g load similar to the acceleration rate leaving the system (a bit less given you can spread decel over a couple more years, but not much more or it would take years more ship time). So the power levels are similar. Opps, forgot the fusion motor is more efficent since all its thrust would be applied to the ship. Most (probably up to 90%) of the maser beam would pass to the sides of the ship sail. (I assume a beam diameter 5 to 10 times that of the sail to give a clean even hot spot for the ship to stay in.) >>> Assuming the new design requires a scoop which weighs as much as the >>> entire payload, the fusion motor only needs to be twice as powerful. > >>The higher acceleration rates needed by the main ship would probably require >>the motor be scaled up more than that. > >How much more? Posibly a factor of ten. I remenber fuel sail could only do about a 1/10th g when fully fueled. Explorer needed to do 1 g. >>>>D-D or D-T need a tank (one likely to outweigh the unfueled starship), will >>>>boil off into space over the years, and are very rare and expensive. >> Lithium >>>>is extreamly common and cheap (well under a dollar a pound assuming you >>>>refine medical grade Lithium to Lithum-6), can be chemically bonded with >>>>hydrogen to carry it, and can be used as a structural metal. > >>> However the simple fact is that if you can't achieve Lithium-hydrogen >>> fusion, you can't use it. Period. D-D or D-T fusion will be acheived >>> much sooner, probably. > >>Possibly, but the development time can be accelerated considferably given a >>R&D budget. Given the needs of this project would require a huge budget, the >>funds to develop a fusion system to our needs would be trivial. > >That's not the way science works. You don't just funnel in money, and >get results proportional to your money. No matter how much you spend, >R&D requires experiments which take a certain amount of time to >accomplish. > >And even then there's no guarantee of success. Were not talking about science, were talking about engineering. I.E. the same kind of fusion systems, just higher power levels. I'ld be more worried about scaling up the reactors to 'burn' about 40, million tons of fuel in few months/years. >The fact is that we could build a vehicle powered primarily by D-D >reactions _today_ (a crude Orion rocket). Within 10 or 20 years, >we could even do a pretty good job of it (a refined MagOrion). >By the time we can even consider a manned interstellar mission, >it should be easy technology. Orion has a poor spec imp and mass ratio, but your right it, or laser fusion, or a couple other designs are within present tech. (Give or take a decade to develop and test the systems.) >The fact is that there is no telling how long it would take to power >something with lithium fusion, no matter how much money is spent >researching it. > >How long do you think it will take, assuming we spend 100 billion >dollars a year on fusion research specifically aimed at acheiving >lithium fusion? Rough estimate? Ten years? 100 years? 500 years? Assuming a few hundred million a year (oh say a couple billion to be really safe) probably 20 years. Also note the scale of the engines required for such a ship would make them vstly larger and more stable, then the ground based power systems were studing now. >>Oh I agree by the way that the cost of the maser stations to boost the ship >>out would be the dominent cost factor of a maser sail systems, but don't >>think you variation would reduce that. > >Back it up with some numbers. Just rough guestimates. Depends on the manufacturing tech. I roughly remember the O'Neil Maser platforms were expected to produce10^11 maybe 10^12 watts and cost about $10 billion a peice. I remember we were expecting to need 10^16 to 10^18th in total beamed power (real rough memory) sou that would cost so the cost would be $100 trillion to $10,000 trillion (compared to $tens of billions for the litium fuel). Obviously impossible, it would be cheaper to just use 400 times as much fusion fuel and boost pure fusion. But automated mass production of standard sateligths, consuming near earthy asteroids for ore, should (hopefully) bring the cost of the sats down by a couple orders of magnitude or the projects obviousl imposible with current tech. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 17 10:25 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2437" "Mon" "17" "November" "1997" "12:25:33" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "58" "Re: Re: Re: The fuelsail is stupid (was starship-design: Hull Materials)" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA21415 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:25:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (mouse.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.46]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA21375 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:25:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00644; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:25:35 -0600 Message-Id: <9711171825.AA00644@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <971117125128_-1206815280@mrin85.mail.aol.com> from "KellySt@aol.com" at Nov 17, 97 12:51:31 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2436 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: Re: Re: The fuelsail is stupid (was starship-design: Hull Materials) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:25:33 -0600 (CST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 11/17/97 6:53:05 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>>>In a message dated 11/15/97 5:31:48 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>>>>>So there you have it. If the fuel/sail concept is even possible, >>>>>>there is no good reason to do it. Even if the scoop I mentionned >>>>>>weighed 10 _times_ as much as the payload, you'll probably save >>>>>>in the cost of the laser more than you'll save in the cost of the >>>>>>lithium. >>>>In this design I assume that the ship itself has to maneuver in order >>>>to catch the fuel packages. I assume this requires 50% more fuel >>>>just to catch the fuel packages! And I assume the scoop used weighs >>>>as much as the rest of the payload! >>>>This increases the fuel requirements by a factor of 6. >>>>However, considering the laser's cost is reduced by a factor of 100, >>>>it's easily worth it. Consider that the laser will weigh many >>>>magnitudes more than the fueled starship in the fuel/sail design. >>>Two assumptions I'm not comfortable with. One: given the major delta V >>>requirements for manuvers to intercept fuel ships, assuming they are close >>>enough together that the mainship could intercept them (were talking about >>>fractions of light speed and potentially light minutes of lateral drift. >>So what? The amount of fuel expense I assume would be enough to handle >>light _days_ of lateral maneuvering. Remember that this ship is >>using an entire 1/3 of its fuel capacity in order to make the 200 >>intercepts. To a rough degree, this allows 4/400 light years of >>maneuvering (assuming the design target system is Alpha Centauri, >>4 light years away). >>I am assuming what I consider to be absolutely obviously worse than >>would ever be the case. >I'm not clear how many fuel packets you expect to launch. Presumably >hundreds. Why assume when I explicitely write exactly how many are proposed? As I stated in my original e-mail, 200 fuel sails. As I state above in the quoted text, 200 intercepts. Please, if you aren't even reading what I write, do not bother responding. I refuse to even read the rest of your e-mail until you start reading to what you're responding to. What a waste of time. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 17 13:07 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["605" "Mon" "17" "November" "1997" "15:00:19" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "29" "RE: Re: Re: The fuelsail is stupid (was starship-design: Hull Materials)" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA14135 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:07:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA14002 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:06:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p39.gnt.com [204.49.68.244]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA32021; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:06:54 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:06:52 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCF36A.6F636880.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 604 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'KellySt@aol.com'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: Re: Re: The fuelsail is stupid (was starship-design: Hull Materials) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:00:19 -0600 On Monday, November 17, 1997 11:52 AM, KellySt@aol.com [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: > Orion has a poor spec imp and mass ratio, but your right it, or laser > fusion, > or a couple other designs are within present tech. (Give or take a decade > to > develop and test the systems.) > Engineering test beds are running right now... Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- Up the airy mountain, Down the rushy glen, We daren't go a-hunting For fear of little men; William Allingham, Ireland, 1850 From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 17 13:07 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4845" "Mon" "17" "November" "1997" "14:52:32" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "119" "starship-design: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA14297 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:07:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA14182 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:07:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p39.gnt.com [204.49.68.244]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA32005; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:06:48 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:06:42 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCF36A.69D3C360.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 4844 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:52:32 -0600 On Monday, November 17, 1997 11:15 AM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > You mean .3c, of course. And this _requires_ the use of a high > power laser (yes, a coherent microwave beam is a microwave laser). Umm, yes I did. Sorry about that. Gee, we used to call those Masers...am I giving away my age? > Forward's proposal would take 2 weeks, which I wouldn't call > "a few days". I noticed that several places in his papers. He was/is pretty good about "few" meaning "several dozen or more". Sorry, I was just quoting. > Actually, it is proposed to withstand 100 gees. There is no attempt > by Forward to demonstrate how this could be acheived. Theoretically, > negligible structural strength is required so long as the laser > pushes absolutely evenly across the entire 1km of the Starwisp. > > In practice, even the slightest error (which realistically there > will be) will rip apart the Starwisp as soon as the beam is turned > on. Well in one paper he uses 115 g's and in another he uses 400 g's. > You must realize that none of these proposals are complete, and > pretty much all of Forward's proposals have huge gaping holes. > At first, he proposed using a ring of microwave beams emitting > in phase in order to acheive the aperture needed using VLBI. > Obviously, he didn't know that it wouldn't work. Later he came > up with the fresnel lens concept, which would work (but reduce > beam power by about 50%). I will grant that the lack of hard engineering specifications in his (and other) papers from that era probably indicate only cursory engineering was performed. Either way, I don't have the time to duplicate it. Perhaps there will be new data available next spring... > > He never bothered with the engineering difficulties of making > and stabalizing such a huge fresnel lens, though. Not to switch sides or anything, but I don't believe the fresnel lens will even work for several different reasons. His use of the fresnel lens was for a larger, manned proposal. The Starwisp received ALL of its acceleration while still within range of the original...uhh, maser. > Not all data is classified. The costs of these these things are > often reported in news reports and AvLeak articles. For instance, > you've probably heard a gazillion times how much a Tomohawk cruise > missile costs, seeing as they mention it every time they get used. I've read Aviation Leak for over twenty years. This data is still classified. > No it didn't. He just didn't bother with that part of it. He > also didn't bother with figuring out how much the Starwisp would > get heated by the laser, which is an even more basic issue. I will agree with the tidal force issue, primarily because we don't know what it really is now and certainly didn't then. The heating issue however, was studied, both from laser/maser and solar. The references in the previous post were the relevant studies. > Umm...yes it needs a fresnel lens. It's huge multi-kilometer diameter > fresnel lens made up of consentric rings of reflective material. Not for microwaves...and I still don't think a fresnel lens will work. > No, it uses a fission reactor powering an ion rocket. This is an > actual _proposal_, which you can see on NASA's web page. In other > words, something they could actually build and fly, if given the > funding. Yep, it is _one_ of NASA's _proposed_ designs. Look at some of the other engines JPL is currently working on for the same mission. I assume the one you saw is the Xenon based Ion engine. Look at Dense Plasma Focus, and Antimatter Catalyzed Microfission/fusion also. NASA and the USAF are funding development. BTW, Icarus was/is a solar sail design for that mission. > I'm not attacking sails--however I am pointing out that the additional > boost you could get with a solar flyby for an inter_stellar_ mission > is not ever going to be worth it. Such a sail will need to be > powered by one of: > > 1. Laser > 2. Particle beam > 3. Nuclear bomb track > > Whereas the small additional help a solar boost could give is far > outweighed by the disadvantages. > Frankly, I don't really believe that a solar sail will be very useful at all. I don't consider 0.3 c sufficient for interstellar travel. My only point was that accelerating to 0.3 c in a matter of weeks (assuming it is possible) is not a trivial boost, wherever it came from. > A powered sail, OTOH, is really only applicable to interstellar > missions (or as anti-vehicular weapons). A sail as a weapon, Hmm, what an interesting idea. Lee (o o) ------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo----- ---- Up the airy mountain, Down the rushy glen, We daren't go a-hunting For fear of little men; William Allingham, Ireland, 1850 From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 17 13:07 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["867" "Mon" "17" "November" "1997" "15:05:39" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "29" "RE: starship-design: Space Money" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA14338 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:07:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA14208 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:07:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p39.gnt.com [204.49.68.244]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA32028; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:06:58 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:06:56 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCF36A.71D81200.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 866 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'KellySt@aol.com'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Space Money Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:05:39 -0600 On Monday, November 17, 1997 11:51 AM, KellySt@aol.com [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: > True I've seen far better numbers out of McDonnel Douglas' internal > market > studies. But then NASA HQ does really beleve their is any potential > market > for many launches. If you believe John Walker, you might think it was on purpose. Then again, someone a few years back (Zubrin maybe?) made the statement that NASA's problem was ACHIEVING its goals. Once they successfully completed a program their funding is inevitably cut. So it is in their own best interest to stretch things out... Lee (o o) ------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo----- ---- Up the airy mountain, Down the rushy glen, We daren't go a-hunting For fear of little men; William Allingham, Ireland, 1850 From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 17 21:24 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4702" "Mon" "17" "November" "1997" "23:23:25" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "114" "starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA21001 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 21:23:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (mouse.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.46]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA20941 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 21:23:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA02118; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 23:23:30 -0600 Message-Id: <9711180523.AA02118@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <01BCF36A.69D3C360.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Nov 17, 97 02:52:32 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 4701 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 23:23:25 -0600 (CST) L. Parker wrote: >On Monday, November 17, 1997 11:15 AM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] >wrote: >> He never bothered with the engineering difficulties of making >> and stabalizing such a huge fresnel lens, though. >Not to switch sides or anything, but I don't believe the fresnel lens will >even work for several different reasons. His use of the fresnel lens was >for a larger, manned proposal. The Starwisp received ALL of its >acceleration while still within range of the original...uhh, maser. No, it still needs a fresnel lens. Without it, diffraction limits are too severe. The beam needs to fall on a spot 1km wide at a range of 30,000,000,000km. With a wavelength of 1mm, that requires an aperture around 30,000km wide. Don't tell me you're going to make a microwave laser that big. Let me repeat that last figure: Starwisp with a 1mm wavelength requires a lens 30,000km wide. 3 times the diameter of Earth. No matter how you cut it, this is clearly way beyond today's technology. >> No it didn't. He just didn't bother with that part of it. He >> also didn't bother with figuring out how much the Starwisp would >> get heated by the laser, which is an even more basic issue. >I will agree with the tidal force issue, primarily because we don't know >what it really is now and certainly didn't then. Huh? Isaac Newton could have given you the tidal forces with good accuracy. It's a simple application of the equation for gravitational force. The Sun's mass is 2x10^30 kg. At a distance of 1,000,000km from its center, the tidal force on something 1km wide is about 4x10^-4 newtons per kilogram. For a 20g Starwisp, this would be 8x10^-6 N. I'll admit this is less than I originally thought it would be, but it's still enough to rip apart the flimsy Starwisp. >The heating issue however, >was studied, both from laser/maser and solar. The references in the >previous post were the relevant studies. Not by Forward. >> No, it uses a fission reactor powering an ion rocket. This is an >> actual _proposal_, which you can see on NASA's web page. In other >> words, something they could actually build and fly, if given the >> funding. >Yep, it is _one_ of NASA's _proposed_ designs. Look at some of the other >engines JPL is currently working on for the same mission. I assume the one >you saw is the Xenon based Ion engine. Look at Dense Plasma Focus, and >Antimatter Catalyzed Microfission/fusion also. NASA and the USAF are >funding development. BTW, Icarus was/is a solar sail design for that >mission. Anyway, it falsifies your claim that fusion "would" be used for TAU. Obviously, it would only be used if a fusion drive were developed for it. Which it probably isn't. I am not aware of these other concepts, but I'm sure they are not proposals for actual probes. >> I'm not attacking sails--however I am pointing out that the additional >> boost you could get with a solar flyby for an inter_stellar_ mission >> is not ever going to be worth it. Such a sail will need to be >> powered by one of: >> 1. Laser >> 2. Particle beam >> 3. Nuclear bomb track >> Whereas the small additional help a solar boost could give is far >> outweighed by the disadvantages. >Frankly, I don't really believe that a solar sail will be very useful at >all. I don't consider 0.3 c sufficient for interstellar travel. Maybe not, but IMO it's clearly sufficient for an interstellar probe flyby mission, which is all it's really good for anyway (my rule of thumb is that anything good enough to use for decelerating at an unprepared target system is good enough for the acceleration run. Conversely, anything only good for the acceleration run doesn't really help if you want to stop at the target system.) IMO, 10%c is sufficent for interstellar flyby missions. >My only >point was that accelerating to 0.3 c in a matter of weeks (assuming it is >possible) is not a trivial boost, wherever it came from. I agree that it's not trivial. However, before, you were implying that you could get .3c essentially "for free" because of the Solar flyby maneuver. Which is nonsense. >> A powered sail, OTOH, is really only applicable to interstellar >> missions (or as anti-vehicular weapons). >A sail as a weapon, Hmm, what an interesting idea. Perhaps, but it's also one which has a very low rate of fire, is highly visible, and relatively easy to counter. About its only selling point is that it has much longer range/much greater speed than other possibilities. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 17 22:02 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7020" "Mon" "17" "November" "1997" "23:32:06" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "187" "starship-design: FW: SSRT: Various X-33 press releases" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA12869 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 22:02:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA12801 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 22:02:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p20.gnt.com [204.49.68.225]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA14968 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:02:15 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:02:10 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCF3B5.373FF5E0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 7019 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: FW: SSRT: Various X-33 press releases Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 23:32:06 -0600 -----Original Message----- From: Chris W. Johnson [SMTP:chrisj@mail.utexas.edu] Sent: Monday, November 17, 1997 8:50 PM To: Single Stage Rocket Technology News Subject: SSRT: Various X-33 press releases Two X-33 Press Releases: 1. NASA Completes X-33 Environmental Impact Statement Process 2. X-33 Launch Facility Groundbreaking Held -------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Cast Headquarters, Washington, DC November 5, 1997 (Phone: 202/358-1779) Dom Amatore Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL (Phone: 205/544-0031) Ron Lindeke Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, Palmdale, CA (Phone: 805/572-4153) RELEASE: 97-254 NASA COMPLETES X-33 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROCESS NASA yesterday completed its Record of Decision (ROD) on the X-33 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), announcing it intends to proceed with the preferred X-33 flight test program as described in the Final EIS issued Oct. 3. Signing of the decision document yesterday by Dr. Robert E. Whitehead, NASA Associate Administrator for Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology, concludes a 12-month EIS process of assessing the development and flight test of the X-33, a subscale technology demonstrator prototype of a Reusable Launch Vehicle. All 15 test flights of the X-33 will be conducted from the launch site at Haystack Butte on the eastern portion of Edwards Air Force Base, CA, to landing sites at Michael Army Air Field, Dugway Proving Ground, UT, and Malmstrom Air Force Base near Great Falls, MT. A third landing site, Silurian Lake, a dry lake bed near Baker, CA, had been considered for use as a short-range landing site. However, flights into Dugway's airfield some 450 miles from Edwards better match the initial flight demonstration requirements. The X-33 environmental study considered issues such as public safety, noise, impacts on general aviation, and effects on biological, natural and other resources. Two launch sites and five landing sites were evaluated for potential use. The final decision on a flight test program was based on programmatic, technical, and other considerations as well as environmental factors. Overall, environmental impacts of the program are expected to be low at all operational sites. Now that the environmental process for the X-33 has been completed, the next major program milestone is groundbreaking for the launch facility at Edwards Air Force Base. Construction crews are scheduled to begin work this week. Construction is scheduled to be completed within a year. The X-33 is being developed under a cooperative agreement between NASA and Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, Palmdale, CA, which began July 2, 1996. NASA has budgeted $941 million for the X-33 program through 1999. Lockheed Martin will invest at least $212 million in the X-33 program. The X-33 is a sub-scale technology demonstrator prototype of a Reusable Launch Vehicle, which Lockheed Martin has named "Venture Star (tm)," and which the company hopes to develop early in the next century. Through demonstration flights and ground research, the X-33 will provide information needed for industry to decide by the year 2000 whether to proceed to the development of a full-scale, commercial single-stage-to-orbit reusable launch vehicle. - end - NOTE TO EDITORS: The two-volume Final Environmental Impact Statement is available on the Internet at URL (approximately 1,025 pages with appendices): http://eemo.msfc.nasa.gov/eemo/x33_eis An electronic version of the 45-page executive summary is available at (1 MB file in Portable Document Format): http://eemo.msfc.nasa.gov/eemo/x33_eis/x-33_pdf/executive_summary.pdf Print versions of the document are available for review in the NASA Headquarters and Marshall Space Flight Center newsrooms. ----------------------------------------------------------- Jim Cast Headquarters, Washington, DC November 14, 1997 (Phone: 202/358-1779) Fred Brown Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA (Phone: 805/258-2663) Dom Amatore Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL (Phone: 205/544-0031) Ron Lindeke Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, Palmdale, CA (Phone: 805/572-4153) Ranney Adams USAF Research Laboratory, Propulsion Directorate Edwards Air Force Base, CA (Phone: 805/275-5465) RELEASE: 97-266 X-33 LAUNCH FACILITY GROUNDBREAKING HELD Representatives from NASA, the U.S. Air Force and industry today broke ground at the launch site for the X-33 Advanced Technology Demonstrator during a ceremony at Edwards Air Force Base, CA. The 25-acre launch site is located on the eastern portion of Edwards, a few hundred yards north of what is known as Haystack Butte. The beginning of construction for X-33 launch facilities marks another major milestone for the program -- milestones which have included, during the last two weeks, the successful completion of a critical design review for the vehicle and closing out of the environmental impact statement process for X-33. All 15 planned test flights of the X-33 will be launched from the Edwards facility beginning in July 1999. Landing sites are Michael Army Air Field at Dugway Proving Ground, UT, and Malmstrom Air Force Base, MT. Approximately 100 workers will construct the $30 million launch facility, with work scheduled to be completed in a year. Sverdrup Corp., St. Louis, MO, is overseeing construction of the facility. Site plans include a retractable vehicle shelter; a rotating vehicle launch mount; storage areas for the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen used for fuel, and helium and liquid nitrogen used in vehicle operations; a water storage tank for the sound suppression system; a concrete flame trench; and assorted site infrastructure. The vehicle's operations control center will be located in an existing test control room within Haystack Butte. NASA and the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works are conducting the X-33 program under a cooperative agreement. The X-33 is a subscale technology demonstration prototype of a commercial Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) Lockheed Martin has labeled "VentureStar (tm)," which the company hopes to develop early in the next century. Through development and demonstration flights, the X-33 will provide the information needed for industry to decide by the year 2000 whether to proceed with the development of a full-scale, commercial RLV program. A full-scale, single-stage-to-orbit RLV could dramatically increase reliability and lower the cost of putting a pound of payload into space from $10,000 to $1,000. By reducing the cost associated with transporting payloads into Low Earth Orbit, a commercial RLV would create new opportunities for space access and significantly improve U.S. economic competitiveness in the worldwide launch marketplace. NASA will be a customer on, not the operator of, an industry-developed RLV. - end - From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 17 22:02 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4270" "Tue" "18" "November" "1997" "00:01:21" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "102" "RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA13223 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 22:02:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA13158 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 22:02:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p20.gnt.com [204.49.68.225]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA14982; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:02:22 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:02:18 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCF3B5.3C001600.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 4269 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:01:21 -0600 On Monday, November 17, 1997 11:23 PM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > No, it still needs a fresnel lens. Without it, diffraction limits > are too severe. The beam needs to fall on a spot 1km wide at a > range of 30,000,000,000km. With a wavelength of 1mm, that requires > an aperture around 30,000km wide. Don't tell me you're going to > make a microwave laser that big. > Unless, I totally misremember, a Fresnel lens is a diffraction device not a reflection device. It won't work with microwaves unless you are going to make it out of about a zillion miniature waveguides... Its irrelevant anyway, a Fresnel lens cannot be built that will function as advertised, so if you are correct about the aperture (and I suspect you are, but I will run the equations when I have more time) then you can forget a maser powered sail. Or a maser powered anything for that matter. > Huh? Isaac Newton could have given you the tidal forces with good > accuracy. It's a simple application of the equation for gravitational > force. The Sun's mass is 2x10^30 kg. At a distance of 1,000,000km > from its center, the tidal force on something 1km wide is about > 4x10^-4 newtons per kilogram. For a 20g Starwisp, this would be > 8x10^-6 N. I'll admit this is less than I originally thought it > would be, but it's still enough to rip apart the flimsy Starwisp. Are you maybe confusing gravitational force with tidal force or the Roche limit? > >The heating issue however, > >was studied, both from laser/maser and solar. The references in the > >previous post were the relevant studies. > > Not by Forward. No, not by Forward, at least not in the citations I provided. But I provided citations to the people who did. > > >> No, it uses a fission reactor powering an ion rocket. This is an > >> actual _proposal_, which you can see on NASA's web page. In other > >> words, something they could actually build and fly, if given the > >> funding. > > >Yep, it is _one_ of NASA's _proposed_ designs. Look at some of the other > > > >engines JPL is currently working on for the same mission. I assume the > >one > >you saw is the Xenon based Ion engine. Look at Dense Plasma Focus, and > >Antimatter Catalyzed Microfission/fusion also. NASA and the USAF are > >funding development. BTW, Icarus was/is a solar sail design for that > >mission. > > Anyway, it falsifies your claim that fusion "would" be used for TAU. > Obviously, it would only be used if a fusion drive were developed > for it. Which it probably isn't. Huh? What claim? > > I am not aware of these other concepts, but I'm sure they are not > proposals for actual probes. Yep, they sure, are. On NASA sites even, with NASA funding. Just like the ion thrusters... > Maybe not, but IMO it's clearly sufficient for an interstellar probe > flyby mission, which is all it's really good for anyway (my rule > of thumb is that anything good enough to use for decelerating at > an unprepared target system is good enough for the acceleration > run. Conversely, anything only good for the acceleration run > doesn't really help if you want to stop at the target system.) I'll buy that, but see your earlier argument _against_ the flyby mission. > > IMO, 10%c is sufficent for interstellar flyby missions. I wouldn't want to wait that long to get my data back. > I agree that it's not trivial. > > However, before, you were implying that you could get .3c essentially > "for free" because of the Solar flyby maneuver. Which is nonsense. No, I presented a carefully chosen sample of a proposed mission that did make effective use of Hal's idea. I implied nothing that has not been published in scientific journals. (Which, I will grant proves nothing about the validity of said idea.) I specifically exempted his main point as impractical because it did not provide sufficient delta v to make interstellar travel feasible. I am beginning to think we are now discussing whether interstellar bubblegum is feasible. (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- Up the airy mountain, Down the rushy glen, We daren't go a-hunting For fear of little men; William Allingham, Ireland, 1850 From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 17 22:06 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["419" "Tue" "18" "November" "1997" "00:06:21" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "16" "" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA15831 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 22:06:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA15779 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 22:06:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p20.gnt.com [204.49.68.225]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA15420 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:06:54 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:06:47 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCF3B5.DC51A6A0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 418 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:06:21 -0600 I remembered who it was that said NASA's problem was being successful. It was Geoffrey Landis. Now if I can just remember when he said it... Lee (o o) ------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo----- ---- Up the airy mountain, Down the rushy glen, We daren't go a-hunting For fear of little men; William Allingham, Ireland, 1850 From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 17 22:37 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5704" "Tue" "18" "November" "1997" "00:37:31" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "124" "Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA03726 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 22:37:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (mouse.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.46]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA03711 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 22:37:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA02413; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:37:37 -0600 Message-Id: <9711180637.AA02413@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <01BCF3B5.3C001600.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Nov 18, 97 00:01:21 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 5703 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:37:31 -0600 (CST) L. Parker wrote: >On Monday, November 17, 1997 11:23 PM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] >wrote: >> No, it still needs a fresnel lens. Without it, diffraction limits >> are too severe. The beam needs to fall on a spot 1km wide at a >> range of 30,000,000,000km. With a wavelength of 1mm, that requires >> an aperture around 30,000km wide. Don't tell me you're going to >> make a microwave laser that big. >Unless, I totally misremember, a Fresnel lens is a diffraction device not a >reflection device. It won't work with microwaves unless you are going to >make it out of about a zillion miniature waveguides... Actually, as far as I can tell it would works. Yes, some diffraction is involved, but primarily it works by constructive interference. Concentric rings of reflective material reflect (or absorb, it doesn't really matter) wavefronts out of phase with what is desired. In effect, it turns a single wavefront into a bunch of wavefronts which happen to constructively interfere like a phased array radar in the direction of the target. The losses are minimized by having a very large distance between the source laser and the lens. The clever thing about this approach is that it's very insensitive to the "flatness" of the lens. A mirror would have to be kept flat to within less than a millimeter, whereas this lens can be "bumpy", and even rippling, without affecting the quality of the beam. Another feature of the fresnel lens is that by having a large distance between the source laser and the lens, the width of the rings is maximized. For a source laser 1000 times as far away than the diameter of the lens, the thinnest rings (the outer ones) would be 1000 wavelengths wide. Unless you're familiar with optics, VLBI, and/or phased array radar concepts, it's a little difficult to explain how all this works. >> Huh? Isaac Newton could have given you the tidal forces with good >> accuracy. It's a simple application of the equation for gravitational >> force. The Sun's mass is 2x10^30 kg. At a distance of 1,000,000km >> from its center, the tidal force on something 1km wide is about >> 4x10^-4 newtons per kilogram. For a 20g Starwisp, this would be >> 8x10^-6 N. I'll admit this is less than I originally thought it >> would be, but it's still enough to rip apart the flimsy Starwisp. >Are you maybe confusing gravitational force with tidal force or the Roche >limit? I'm talking just about the tidal force, which is derived from the equation for gravitational force. You know, the force that is proportional to the inverse of the cube of the radius, which tends to pull things apart/scrunch them together? >> >> No, it uses a fission reactor powering an ion rocket. This is an >> >> actual _proposal_, which you can see on NASA's web page. In other >> >> words, something they could actually build and fly, if given the >> >> funding. >> >Yep, it is _one_ of NASA's _proposed_ designs. Look at some of the other >> > >> >engines JPL is currently working on for the same mission. I assume the >> >one >> >you saw is the Xenon based Ion engine. Look at Dense Plasma Focus, and >> >Antimatter Catalyzed Microfission/fusion also. NASA and the USAF are >> >funding development. BTW, Icarus was/is a solar sail design for that >> >mission. >> Anyway, it falsifies your claim that fusion "would" be used for TAU. >> Obviously, it would only be used if a fusion drive were developed >> for it. Which it probably isn't. >Huh? What claim? You said "interestingly enough, TAU would use a fusion drive..." That implies that _all_ TAU designs feature a fusion drive. >> I am not aware of these other concepts, but I'm sure they are not >> proposals for actual probes. >Yep, they sure, are. On NASA sites even, with NASA funding. Just like the >ion thrusters... You have a different definition of "proposal for actual probe" than me, apparently. I mean something which could actually be built and flown, with a proposed budget, timeframe, and everything. Something like Galileo or Mars Pathfinder or Space Station Freedom. Fission reactors and ion thrusters exist and are technology mature enough to build a probe with. We can't even guess when a practical fusion reactor _concept_ will be developed, much less understood and/or built. (There's no certainty that MTF or MCF or ICF or even one of the other currently conceived of fusion reactor concepts will ever produce more power than they consume.) >> Maybe not, but IMO it's clearly sufficient for an interstellar probe >> flyby mission, which is all it's really good for anyway (my rule >> of thumb is that anything good enough to use for decelerating at >> an unprepared target system is good enough for the acceleration >> run. Conversely, anything only good for the acceleration run >> doesn't really help if you want to stop at the target system.) >I'll buy that, but see your earlier argument _against_ the flyby mission. My argument against Starwisp specifically is that it's not clear it will ever be worth it, seeing as its sensor suite is so limited. Something with the capabilities of Voyager would easily provide much more detailed and reliable information on a nearby star system than we could expect from future telescopes. >> IMO, 10%c is sufficent for interstellar flyby missions. >I wouldn't want to wait that long to get my data back. What, 50 years? By the time we start throwing around interstellar probes, I'll bet average human lifespans are comfortably over 100 years. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Nov 21 05:26 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["541" "Fri" "21" "November" "1997" "14:24:04" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "20" "starship-design: Old mailing archives complete" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA23366 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 05:26:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA23247 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 05:25:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-028.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xYt5y-001YPCC; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 14:26:06 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 540 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Old mailing archives complete Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 14:24:04 +0100 Hi all, The old (pre MiniLIT) mail archives are once again available via the internet. Their URL is: http://www.xs4all.nl/~jvdl/sdnewsletters/ They're sorted in a logical way regarding the changes in mailing list composition. You'll also find the file SD_history.txt that shows the details of changes of the mailing list and the size of the files. The archives will not stay at that URL forever, but more than long enough for anyone of you to retrieve them. If anyone experiences any troubles... you know where to reach me. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Nov 23 14:55 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1648" "Sun" "23" "November" "1997" "17:55:23" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "39" "Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA20837 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:55:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin42.mail.aol.com (mrin42.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.152]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA20822 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:55:53 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin42.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA29978 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:55:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971123175522_1214301179@mrin42.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1647 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:55:23 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/18/97 2:03:16 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>> Maybe not, but IMO it's clearly sufficient for an interstellar probe >>> flyby mission, which is all it's really good for anyway (my rule >>> of thumb is that anything good enough to use for decelerating at >>> an unprepared target system is good enough for the acceleration >>> run. Conversely, anything only good for the acceleration run >>> doesn't really help if you want to stop at the target system.) > >>I'll buy that, but see your earlier argument _against_ the flyby mission. > >My argument against Starwisp specifically is that it's not clear >it will ever be worth it, seeing as its sensor suite is so limited. > >Something with the capabilities of Voyager would easily provide much >more detailed and reliable information on a nearby star system than >we could expect from future telescopes. But Telescopes can get results quicker and certainly can get as good a optical resolution from here. Given their greater flexiblity (use in multiple star systems with the same scop) and lower cost, they'ld probably prempt any starwisp class stellar probe. >>> IMO, 10%c is sufficent for interstellar flyby missions. > >>I wouldn't want to wait that long to get my data back. > >What, 50 years? By the time we start throwing around interstellar >probes, I'll bet average human lifespans are comfortably over 100 >years. Does that mean people will have careers and lives that much more sedentary? Or funding sources that much more patent? If it take a half century to get results, a inteligent person will wait a couple decades for faster cheaper systems. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Nov 23 14:55 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1173" "Sun" "23" "November" "1997" "17:55:17" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "32" "Re: RE: starship-design: Space Money" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA20820 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:55:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin38.mail.aol.com (mrin38.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.148]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA20781 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:55:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin38.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA07029; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:55:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971123175517_595890043@mrin38> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1172 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Space Money Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:55:17 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/17/97 11:24:21 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >On Monday, November 17, 1997 11:51 AM, KellySt@aol.com >[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: > >> True I've seen far better numbers out of McDonnel Douglas' internal >> market >> studies. But then NASA HQ does really beleve their is any potential >> market >> for many launches. > >If you believe John Walker, you might think it was on purpose. Then again, >someone a few years back (Zubrin maybe?) made the statement that NASA's >problem was ACHIEVING its goals. Once they successfully completed a program >their funding is inevitably cut. So it is in their own best interest to >stretch things out... > >Lee Interesting thought. ;) And their definatly was a group that thought space was there teratory and wanted to defend it from encroachment. But no what I saw in NASA HQ was less selfseving, or forgivible. They flat thought the whole idea was stupid. Were sure interest in using space was vastly overated, were sure nothing of interest in space could be done for less then tens of billions of dollars, and basically felt what they were doing was about all that was needed. SICK!! Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Nov 23 14:55 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1132" "Sun" "23" "November" "1997" "17:55:20" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "27" "Re: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA20838 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:55:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin40.mail.aol.com (mrin40.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.150]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA20823 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:55:54 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin40.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA06782; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:55:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971123175520_1761331707@mrin40.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1131 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:55:20 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/18/97 4:03:33 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >On Monday, November 17, 1997 11:23 PM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] >wrote: > >> No, it still needs a fresnel lens. Without it, diffraction limits >> are too severe. The beam needs to fall on a spot 1km wide at a >> range of 30,000,000,000km. With a wavelength of 1mm, that requires >> an aperture around 30,000km wide. Don't tell me you're going to >> make a microwave laser that big. >> >Unless, I totally misremember, a Fresnel lens is a diffraction device not a >reflection device. It won't work with microwaves unless you are going to >make it out of about a zillion miniature waveguides... > >Its irrelevant anyway, a Fresnel lens cannot be built that will function as >advertised, so if you are correct about the aperture (and I suspect you >are, but I will run the equations when I have more time) then you can >forget a maser powered sail. Or a maser powered anything for that matter. Why? I thought everyone was prewtty comfortable with a phased array emmiter cluster? (See details in recent Fuel/Sail is dumb responce) Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Nov 23 14:56 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["393" "Sun" "23" "November" "1997" "17:55:26" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "13" "starship-design: Re: stardrive" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA20865 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:56:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin45.mail.aol.com (mrin45.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.155]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA20840 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:55:57 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin45.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA27210; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:55:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971123175526_1017508347@mrin45.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 392 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: 95672@tayloru.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: stardrive Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:55:26 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/18/97 2:47:04 PM, you wrote: >have you considered some kind of superconductivity derivative? surely >Jupiter's (or the Sun's) magnetosphere is intense enough even for a >gradual acceleration up to 1/5 C. I'm not clear what kind of system your talking about, but given the small size and weak intensity of planetary magnetospheres, this doesn't seem possible. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Nov 23 14:56 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["375" "Sun" "23" "November" "1997" "17:55:29" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "14" "Re: starship-design: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA20930 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:56:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin39.mail.aol.com (mrin39.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.149]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA20864 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:55:59 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin39.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA22002 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:55:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971123175528_1793820155@mrin39> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 374 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:55:29 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/18/97 12:44:15 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >> You mean .3c, of course. And this _requires_ the use of a high >> power laser (yes, a coherent microwave beam is a microwave laser). > >Umm, yes I did. Sorry about that. Gee, we used to call those Masers...am I >giving away my age? Still called Masers everywhere I've seen them discused. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Nov 23 14:56 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1158" "Sun" "23" "November" "1997" "17:55:31" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "30" "Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA21004 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:56:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin52.mail.aol.com (mrin52.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.162]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA20960 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:56:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin52.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA13431; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:55:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971123175531_1604036731@mrin52.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1157 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:55:31 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/18/97 2:33:10 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >L. Parker wrote: >>On Monday, November 17, 1997 11:15 AM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] >>wrote: > >>> He never bothered with the engineering difficulties of making >>> and stabalizing such a huge fresnel lens, though. > >>Not to switch sides or anything, but I don't believe the fresnel lens will >>even work for several different reasons. His use of the fresnel lens was >>for a larger, manned proposal. The Starwisp received ALL of its >>acceleration while still within range of the original...uhh, maser. > >No, it still needs a fresnel lens. Without it, diffraction limits >are too severe. The beam needs to fall on a spot 1km wide at a >range of 30,000,000,000km. With a wavelength of 1mm, that requires >an aperture around 30,000km wide. Don't tell me you're going to >make a microwave laser that big. As I mentioned a phased array maser cluseer of 2 AU recently (for fuel sail), and we have done extensive conversations of it a year ago, I'ld think we'ld already covered that to death? Hell they're even talking optical telescope clusters on that scale. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Nov 23 14:56 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["392" "Sun" "23" "November" "1997" "17:55:57" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "15" "starship-design: Re: Anyone home?" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA21141 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:56:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin38.mail.aol.com (mrin38.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.148]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA21127 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:56:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin38.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA08757 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:55:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971123175556_207228412@mrin38> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 391 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: DedGoalie@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Anyone home? Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:55:57 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/21/97 9:48:03 AM, you wrote: > I love the L.I.T. site and am a little concerned that there have been no updates >in a year and a half. > Is the site still active? Let me know if I can help. > Sincerly, > Jonathan "Buzz" Ryan The site hasn't been worked on much lately. The group has still been having discusion, but no ones had the time to upgrade the site. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Nov 23 15:00 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1684" "Sun" "23" "November" "1997" "17:59:28" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "48" "Re: Re: Re: Re: The fuelsail is stupid (was starship-design: Hull Materials)" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA23550 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:00:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin42.mail.aol.com (mrin42.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.152]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA23496 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:59:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin42.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA16350; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:59:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971123175927_508377214@mrin42.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1683 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: The fuelsail is stupid (was starship-design: Hull Materials) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:59:28 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/17/97 12:26:23 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>>>>However, considering the laser's cost is reduced by a factor of 100, >>>>>it's easily worth it. Consider that the laser will weigh many >>>>>magnitudes more than the fueled starship in the fuel/sail design. > >>>>Two assumptions I'm not comfortable with. One: given the major delta V >>>>requirements for manuvers to intercept fuel ships, assuming they are close >>>>enough together that the mainship could intercept them (were talking about >>>>fractions of light speed and potentially light minutes of lateral drift. > >>>So what? The amount of fuel expense I assume would be enough to handle >>>light _days_ of lateral maneuvering. Remember that this ship is >>>using an entire 1/3 of its fuel capacity in order to make the 200 >>>intercepts. To a rough degree, this allows 4/400 light years of >>>maneuvering (assuming the design target system is Alpha Centauri, >>>4 light years away). > >>>I am assuming what I consider to be absolutely obviously worse than >>>would ever be the case. > >>I'm not clear how many fuel packets you expect to launch. Presumably >>hundreds. > >Why assume when I explicitely write exactly how many are proposed? >As I stated in my original e-mail, 200 fuel sails. As I state above >in the quoted text, 200 intercepts. > >Please, if you aren't even reading what I write, do not bother >responding. > > >I refuse to even read the rest of your e-mail until you start reading >to what you're responding to. > >What a waste of time Did I complain when you didn't remember any of the details of fuel/sail? Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 24 07:07 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1608" "Mon" "24" "November" "1997" "09:07:26" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "36" "Re: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA15978 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 07:07:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (mouse.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.46]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA15962 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 07:07:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00389; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:07:28 -0600 Message-Id: <9711241507.AA00389@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <971123175520_1761331707@mrin40.mail.aol.com> from "KellySt@aol.com" at Nov 23, 97 05:55:20 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1607 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:07:26 -0600 (CST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 11/18/97 4:03:33 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >>On Monday, November 17, 1997 11:23 PM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] >>wrote: >>> No, it still needs a fresnel lens. Without it, diffraction limits >>> are too severe. The beam needs to fall on a spot 1km wide at a >>> range of 30,000,000,000km. With a wavelength of 1mm, that requires >>> an aperture around 30,000km wide. Don't tell me you're going to >>> make a microwave laser that big. >Why? I thought everyone was prewtty comfortable with a phased array emmiter >cluster? (See details in recent Fuel/Sail is dumb responce) It doesn't work. I came up with the idea (and if I wasn't the one who suggested it, then I came up with the idea independently). However, it doesn't work. This is actually pretty obvious when you do the numbers. A cluster of in phase emitters can only acheive the emitted power/m^2 equivalent to a single emitter with an aperture of the same total aperture area. However, this cluster is less effective than that single emitter in that this power/m^2 is emitted onto a smaller spot (the rest is lost in sidelobes). If you wanted an array to take the place of the single emitter, the best way would be to have an array of emitters sitting "shoulder to shoulder" in a hexagonal grid. It still needs to be 30,000,000,000km in diameter, with lenses flush against each other. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 24 07:17 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2767" "Mon" "24" "November" "1997" "09:17:25" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "64" "Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA18849 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 07:17:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (mouse.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.46]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA18826 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 07:17:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00410; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:17:26 -0600 Message-Id: <9711241517.AA00410@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <971123175522_1214301179@mrin42.mail.aol.com> from "KellySt@aol.com" at Nov 23, 97 05:55:23 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2766 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:17:25 -0600 (CST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 11/18/97 2:03:16 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>>> Maybe not, but IMO it's clearly sufficient for an interstellar probe >>>> flyby mission, which is all it's really good for anyway (my rule >>>> of thumb is that anything good enough to use for decelerating at >>>> an unprepared target system is good enough for the acceleration >>>> run. Conversely, anything only good for the acceleration run >>>> doesn't really help if you want to stop at the target system.) >>>I'll buy that, but see your earlier argument _against_ the flyby mission. >>My argument against Starwisp specifically is that it's not clear >>it will ever be worth it, seeing as its sensor suite is so limited. >>Something with the capabilities of Voyager would easily provide much >>more detailed and reliable information on a nearby star system than >>we could expect from future telescopes. >But Telescopes can get results quicker and certainly can get as good a >optical resolution from here. Actually not. Remember that resolution is proportional to the distance from the observed object. A Voyager-like probe could fly by an atmosphere-less planet a kilometer from its surface. That gives it at least a 4x10^13 advantage in resolution compared to a Solar System telescope. Assuming the Voyager-like probe had a camera with a 1cm lens, the Solar System telescope would need to be at _least_ 4,000,000,000 kilometers in diameter to equal it. >Given their greater flexiblity (use in multiple > star systems with the same scop) and lower cost, they'ld probably prempt any >starwisp class stellar probe. Yes, but starwisp doesn't have anywhere near the capabilities of Voyager. (It needs a compound eye made up of individual optical "cameras" with microscopic lenses.) >>>> IMO, 10%c is sufficent for interstellar flyby missions. >>>I wouldn't want to wait that long to get my data back. >>What, 50 years? By the time we start throwing around interstellar >>probes, I'll bet average human lifespans are comfortably over 100 >>years. >Does that mean people will have careers and lives that much more sedentary? No. But it's possible for people to work on more than one thing at a time. Do you think the Voyager team members just sort of bummed around waiting for their probes to reach Saturn? > Or funding sources that much more patent? If it take a half century to get >results, a inteligent person will wait a couple decades for faster cheaper >systems. Not if those "faster cheaper" systems aren't going to be much faster or much cheaper. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 24 07:22 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1264" "Mon" "24" "November" "1997" "09:22:29" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "30" "Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA19805 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 07:22:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (mouse.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.46]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA19797 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 07:22:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00420; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:22:30 -0600 Message-Id: <9711241522.AA00420@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <971123175531_1604036731@mrin52.mail.aol.com> from "KellySt@aol.com" at Nov 23, 97 05:55:31 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1263 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:22:29 -0600 (CST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>With a wavelength of 1mm, that requires >>an aperture around 30,000km wide. Don't tell me you're going to >>make a microwave laser that big. >As I mentioned a phased array maser cluseer of 2 AU recently (for fuel sail), >and we have done extensive conversations of it a year ago, I'ld think we'ld >already covered that to death? Hell they're even talking optical telescope >clusters on that scale. But it doesn't work. You can get better resolution using a telescope with VLBI, but you can _not_ use phased array to acheive better power concentration. As you should know, VLBI increases resolution, but not sensitivity (compared to a single telescope of the same total aperture area). Think about what that means in reverse. That means that a VLBI array of emitters will decrease illuminated spot size, but not illuminated spot brightness (compared to a single emitter of the same total aperture area). Alternatively, and more convincingly, do some math using the formulas for EM radiation. Since they're linear, all you have to do is add. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Nov 24 07:28 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1756" "Mon" "24" "November" "1997" "09:28:36" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "46" "Re: Re: Re: Re: The fuelsail is stupid (was starship-design: Hull Materials)" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA21906 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 07:28:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (mouse.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.46]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA21900 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 07:28:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00430; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:28:37 -0600 Message-Id: <9711241528.AA00430@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <971123175927_508377214@mrin42.mail.aol.com> from "KellySt@aol.com" at Nov 23, 97 05:59:28 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1755 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: The fuelsail is stupid (was starship-design: Hull Materials) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:28:36 -0600 (CST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 11/17/97 12:26:23 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>>>So what? The amount of fuel expense I assume would be enough to handle >>>>light _days_ of lateral maneuvering. Remember that this ship is >>>>using an entire 1/3 of its fuel capacity in order to make the 200 ^^^ >>>>intercepts. To a rough degree, this allows 4/400 light years of ^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>maneuvering (assuming the design target system is Alpha Centauri, >>>>4 light years away). >> >>>>I am assuming what I consider to be absolutely obviously worse than >>>>would ever be the case. >>>I'm not clear how many fuel packets you expect to launch. Presumably >>>hundreds. >>Why assume when I explicitely write exactly how many are proposed? >>As I stated in my original e-mail, 200 fuel sails. As I state above >>in the quoted text, 200 intercepts. >>Please, if you aren't even reading what I write, do not bother >>responding. [...] > >Did I complain when you didn't remember any of the details of fuel/sail? and I gave you numbers in the last one.> When did I not remember the details of the fuel/sail? You're probably confusing me with someone else. Besides, this is an infuriatingly different situation. You obviously failed to read the very post you were responding to. You didn't even read the text you quoted. I used to have the suspicion that you "misunderstood" others on purpose, but I now think you simply don't have a very good ability to pay attention. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Nov 26 15:06 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1869" "Wed" "26" "November" "1997" "18:06:11" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "46" "Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA08323 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:06:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin39.mail.aol.com (mrin39.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.149]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA08310 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:06:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin39.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id SAA12976; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 18:06:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971126180610_983110421@mrin39> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1868 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 18:06:11 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/24/97 11:45:08 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>In a message dated 11/18/97 4:03:33 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >>>On Monday, November 17, 1997 11:23 PM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] >>>wrote: > >>>> No, it still needs a fresnel lens. Without it, diffraction limits >>>> are too severe. The beam needs to fall on a spot 1km wide at a >>>> range of 30,000,000,000km. With a wavelength of 1mm, that requires >>>> an aperture around 30,000km wide. Don't tell me you're going to >>>> make a microwave laser that big. > >>Why? I thought everyone was prewtty comfortable with a phased array emmiter >>cluster? (See details in recent Fuel/Sail is dumb responce) > >It doesn't work. I came up with the idea (and if I wasn't the one >who suggested it, then I came up with the idea independently). > >However, it doesn't work. This is actually pretty obvious when you >do the numbers. > >A cluster of in phase emitters can only acheive the emitted power/m^2 >equivalent to a single emitter with an aperture of the same total >aperture area. However, this cluster is less effective than that single >emitter in that this power/m^2 is emitted onto a smaller spot (the >rest is lost in sidelobes). > >If you wanted an array to take the place of the single emitter, the >best way would be to have an array of emitters sitting "shoulder to >shoulder" in a hexagonal grid. It still needs to be 30,000,000,000km >in diameter, with lenses flush against each other. Saying its not as efficent as a single emmiter, isn't the same as saying it won't work. Given you couldn't build one single emmiter of the size needed to get the resolution needed. We need a phased array system. (Also the phased array make construction repair and reuse of the beamed energy after boosting easier.) How inefficent is it? Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Nov 26 15:06 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3453" "Wed" "26" "November" "1997" "18:06:15" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "85" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA08418 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:06:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin52.mail.aol.com (mrin52.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.162]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA08334 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:06:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin52.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id SAA25010; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 18:06:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971126180614_1239206166@mrin52.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3452 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 18:06:15 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/24/97 12:31:47 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>In a message dated 11/18/97 2:03:16 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: > >>>>> Maybe not, but IMO it's clearly sufficient for an interstellar probe >>>>> flyby mission, which is all it's really good for anyway (my rule >>>>> of thumb is that anything good enough to use for decelerating at >>>>> an unprepared target system is good enough for the acceleration >>>>> run. Conversely, anything only good for the acceleration run >>>>> doesn't really help if you want to stop at the target system.) > >>>>I'll buy that, but see your earlier argument _against_ the flyby mission. > >>>My argument against Starwisp specifically is that it's not clear >>>it will ever be worth it, seeing as its sensor suite is so limited. > >>>Something with the capabilities of Voyager would easily provide much >>>more detailed and reliable information on a nearby star system than >>>we could expect from future telescopes. > >>But Telescopes can get results quicker and certainly can get as good a >>optical resolution from here. > >Actually not. Remember that resolution is proportional to the distance >from the observed object. A Voyager-like probe could fly by an >atmosphere-less planet a kilometer from its surface. That gives it >at least a 4x10^13 advantage in resolution compared to a Solar System >telescope. Assuming the Voyager-like probe had a camera with a 1cm >lens, the Solar System telescope would need to be at _least_ >4,000,000,000 kilometers in diameter to equal it. I.E. about 10 light secounds. Lunar orbit is 3 light secounds, earth orbit is about 960 light secounds. So a 10 light secound array isn't that big of a deal. Certainly far cheaper and quicker then launching a interstellar probe. >>Given their greater flexiblity (use in multiple >> star systems with the same scop) and lower cost, they'ld probably prempt any >>starwisp class stellar probe. > >Yes, but starwisp doesn't have anywhere near the capabilities of >Voyager. (It needs a compound eye made up of individual optical >"cameras" with microscopic lenses.) Actually its greater virtual lens size would give it a greater resolution (assuming you could make it work) but thats a nit. >>>>> IMO, 10%c is sufficent for interstellar flyby missions. > >>>>I wouldn't want to wait that long to get my data back. > >>>What, 50 years? By the time we start throwing around interstellar >>>probes, I'll bet average human lifespans are comfortably over 100 >>>years. > >>Does that mean people will have careers and lives that much more sedentary? > >No. But it's possible for people to work on more than one thing at >a time. Do you think the Voyager team members just sort of bummed >around waiting for their probes to reach Saturn? Pretty much. Thats one of the reasons JPL is finding it harder and harder to hire good people. They can expect to spend their careers on one project. If it fails, they've done nothing. In any event get funding for a 50 year project with no payback until the 50 ye ar finish, if then, is about imposible. >> Or funding sources that much more patent? If it take a half century to get >>results, a inteligent person will wait a couple decades for faster cheaper >>systems. > >Not if those "faster cheaper" systems aren't going to be much faster or >much cheaper. When have we not developed much better systems after a few decades? Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Nov 26 15:06 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1161" "Wed" "26" "November" "1997" "18:06:17" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "32" "Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA08444 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:06:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin79.mail.aol.com (mrin79.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.189]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA08410 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:06:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin79.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id SAA23137; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 18:06:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971126180617_163833493@mrin79> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1160 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 18:06:17 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/24/97 11:51:08 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>>With a wavelength of 1mm, that requires >>>an aperture around 30,000km wide. Don't tell me you're going to >>>make a microwave laser that big. > >>As I mentioned a phased array maser cluseer of 2 AU recently (for fuel sail), >>and we have done extensive conversations of it a year ago, I'ld think we'ld >>already covered that to death? Hell they're even talking optical telescope >>clusters on that scale. > >But it doesn't work. You can get better resolution using a telescope >with VLBI, but you can _not_ use phased array to acheive better power >concentration. > >As you should know, VLBI increases resolution, but not sensitivity >(compared to a single telescope of the same total aperture area). > >Think about what that means in reverse. That means that a VLBI array >of emitters will decrease illuminated spot size, but not illuminated >spot brightness (compared to a single emitter of the same total aperture >area). Agreed, but the critical problem was resolution of the beam at long ranges. Beam intensity isn't as dificult to deal with. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Nov 26 16:06 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3293" "Wed" "26" "November" "1997" "18:05:53" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "81" "Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA09107 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 16:06:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (mouse.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.46]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA09074 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 16:06:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA01363; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 18:05:56 -0600 Message-Id: <9711270005.AA01363@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <971126180610_983110421@mrin39> from "KellySt@aol.com" at Nov 26, 97 06:06:11 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3292 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 18:05:53 -0600 (CST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 11/24/97 11:45:08 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>>In a message dated 11/18/97 4:03:33 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >>>>On Monday, November 17, 1997 11:23 PM, Isaac Kuo >[SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] >>>>wrote: >>>>> No, it still needs a fresnel lens. Without it, diffraction limits >>>>> are too severe. The beam needs to fall on a spot 1km wide at a >>>>> range of 30,000,000,000km. With a wavelength of 1mm, that requires >>>>> an aperture around 30,000km wide. Don't tell me you're going to >>>>> make a microwave laser that big. >>>Why? I thought everyone was prewtty comfortable with a phased >>>array emmiter cluster? (See details in recent Fuel/Sail is dumb responce) >>It doesn't work. I came up with the idea (and if I wasn't the one >>who suggested it, then I came up with the idea independently). >>However, it doesn't work. This is actually pretty obvious when you >>do the numbers. >>A cluster of in phase emitters can only acheive the emitted power/m^2 >>equivalent to a single emitter with an aperture of the same total >>aperture area. However, this cluster is less effective than that single >>emitter in that this power/m^2 is emitted onto a smaller spot (the >>rest is lost in sidelobes). >>If you wanted an array to take the place of the single emitter, the >>best way would be to have an array of emitters sitting "shoulder to >>shoulder" in a hexagonal grid. It still needs to be 30,000,000,000km >>in diameter, with lenses flush against each other. >Saying its not as efficent as a single emmiter, isn't the same as saying it >won't work. Well, okay...technically, helicopter can be lifted with a thousand small propellers rather than a small number of large rotors. However, using a thousand small propellers "doesn't work" in the sense that it doesn't make the design any easier--and in fact makes the design harder. So no one would do it. Simply put, the total area of the lenses needs to be at _least_ the same area of the total area of the single lens. However, this assumes the array is sitting side by side with no gaps. If you're using a "swarm" of orbitting emitters, the array must be much larger, with a lot of energy wasted in sidelobes. >Given you couldn't build one single emmiter of the size needed >to get the resolution needed. We need a phased array system. That argument might have some validity if the phased array system were any easier to build. It isn't. It's like a poor man thinking he doesn't have a hundred dollar bill so what he needs is a thousand quarters. >(Also the >phased array make construction repair and reuse of the beamed energy after >boosting easier.) >How inefficent is it? It depends on how far apart the gaps are in the phase array. First encircle the array in a circle of minimum diameter. The ratio of the filled part of that circle to the total area is its maximum efficiency at its diffraction limit. For instance, if an array of total dish area 3.14km^2 is spread over 200km in diameter, the maximum efficiency is only .01%. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Nov 26 16:17 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3355" "Wed" "26" "November" "1997" "18:17:05" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "79" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA14587 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 16:17:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (mouse.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.46]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA14555 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 16:17:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA01426; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 18:17:06 -0600 Message-Id: <9711270017.AA01426@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <971126180614_1239206166@mrin52.mail.aol.com> from "KellySt@aol.com" at Nov 26, 97 06:06:15 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3354 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 18:17:05 -0600 (CST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>>But Telescopes can get results quicker and certainly can get as good a >>>optical resolution from here. >>Actually not. Remember that resolution is proportional to the distance >>from the observed object. A Voyager-like probe could fly by an >>atmosphere-less planet a kilometer from its surface. That gives it >>at least a 4x10^13 advantage in resolution compared to a Solar System >>telescope. Assuming the Voyager-like probe had a camera with a 1cm >>lens, the Solar System telescope would need to be at _least_ >>4,000,000,000 kilometers in diameter to equal it. >I.E. about 10 light secounds. Lunar orbit is 3 light secounds, earth orbit >is about 960 light secounds. So a 10 light secound array isn't that big of a >deal. Certainly far cheaper and quicker then launching a interstellar probe. That is a big deal! Do you have any idea how to do VLBI with visible wavelengths? If so, there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you. We can do VLBI with microwave wavelengths because it's just barely possible to measure phase with them (and thus possible to receive multiple signals and constructively interfere them appropriately). We _can't_ do VLBI with infrared and shorter wavelengths. It _might_ be possible to do it in the future, but don't bank on it. >>>Given their greater flexiblity (use in multiple >>> star systems with the same scop) and lower cost, they'ld probably >>>prempt any starwisp class stellar probe. >>Yes, but starwisp doesn't have anywhere near the capabilities of >>Voyager. (It needs a compound eye made up of individual optical >>"cameras" with microscopic lenses.) >Actually its greater virtual lens size would give it a greater resolution >(assuming you could make it work) but thats a nit. No, starwisp used each "camera" as a single pixel camera, because you can't do VLBI with visible wavelengths (as far as we know). >>>>>> IMO, 10%c is sufficent for interstellar flyby missions. >>No. But it's possible for people to work on more than one thing at >>a time. Do you think the Voyager team members just sort of bummed >>around waiting for their probes to reach Saturn? >Pretty much. Thats one of the reasons JPL is finding it harder and harder to >hire good people. They can expect to spend their careers on one project. If >it fails, they've done nothing. Well, they didn't. They actually had careers, doing other things, and in fact only a handful of the original team stuck with it for the entire project. >>> Or funding sources that much more patent? If it take a half >>>century to get results, a inteligent person will wait a couple >>>decades for faster cheaper systems. >>Not if those "faster cheaper" systems aren't going to be much faster or >>much cheaper. >When have we not developed much better systems after a few decades? For instance, automobiles. Automotive technology has gotten a bit better, but a 1960's Cobra can race competetively with anything we can build today of similar weight/size. A 1940's Volkswagon is still one of the most fuel efficient vehicles you can drive. Cars are a bit better, but not outrageously better, than several decades ago. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Nov 27 04:58 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["912" "Thu" "27" "November" "1997" "13:57:17" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "23" "Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA21528 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 04:58:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl ([148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA21516 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 04:58:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id NAA01283; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 13:57:17 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199711271257.NAA01283@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 911 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 13:57:17 +0100 (MET) > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 11/24/97 12:31:47 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: > > >Actually not. Remember that resolution is proportional to the distance > >from the observed object. A Voyager-like probe could fly by an > >atmosphere-less planet a kilometer from its surface. That gives it > >at least a 4x10^13 advantage in resolution compared to a Solar System > >telescope. Assuming the Voyager-like probe had a camera with a 1cm > >lens, the Solar System telescope would need to be at _least_ > >4,000,000,000 kilometers in diameter to equal it. > > I.E. about 10 light secounds. Lunar orbit is 3 light secounds, earth orbit > is about 960 light secounds. So a 10 light secound array isn't that big of > a deal. Certainly far cheaper and quicker then launching a interstellar > probe. > Huh? 4,000,000,000 km / 300,000 km/s = 13,333 s = 3.7 hours. Somebody's wrong... -- Zenon From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Nov 28 19:11 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2810" "Fri" "28" "November" "1997" "22:10:55" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "71" "Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA13890 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 19:11:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin39.mail.aol.com (mrin39.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.149]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA13883 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 19:11:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin39.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id WAA02921; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 22:10:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971128221055_632653091@mrin39> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2809 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 22:10:55 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/27/97 3:09:43 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>>>But Telescopes can get results quicker and certainly can get as good a >>>>optical resolution from here. > >>>Actually not. Remember that resolution is proportional to the distance >>>from the observed object. A Voyager-like probe could fly by an >>>atmosphere-less planet a kilometer from its surface. That gives it >>>at least a 4x10^13 advantage in resolution compared to a Solar System >>>telescope. Assuming the Voyager-like probe had a camera with a 1cm >>>lens, the Solar System telescope would need to be at _least_ >>>4,000,000,000 kilometers in diameter to equal it. > >>I.E. about 10 light secounds. Lunar orbit is 3 light secounds, earth orbit >>is about 960 light secounds. So a 10 light secound array isn't that big of a >>deal. Certainly far cheaper and quicker then launching a interstellar probe. > > >That is a big deal! Do you have any idea how to do VLBI with >visible wavelengths? > >If so, there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you. > >We can do VLBI with microwave wavelengths because it's just barely >possible to measure phase with them (and thus possible to receive >multiple signals and constructively interfere them appropriately). > >We _can't_ do VLBI with infrared and shorter wavelengths. It _might_ >be possible to do it in the future, but don't bank on it. Actualy we do currently do VLBI with optical ground telescopes, and NASA is tinkering with a project to scatter 1 meter drone scopes across an area of hundreds of miles of lunar surface. To my knowledge no one was expecting a Nobel. ===>> >>>> Or funding sources that much more patent? If it take a half >>>>century to get results, a inteligent person will wait a couple >>>>decades for faster cheaper systems. > >>>Not if those "faster cheaper" systems aren't going to be much faster or >>>much cheaper. > >>When have we not developed much better systems after a few decades? > >For instance, automobiles. Automotive technology has gotten a bit >better, but a 1960's Cobra can race competetively with anything >we can build today of similar weight/size. A 1940's Volkswagon >is still one of the most fuel efficient vehicles you can drive. > >Cars are a bit better, but not outrageously better, than several >decades ago. Cars speeds are governed by highway speed limits. Unrestricted the max speed for a car a hundred years ago was tens of miles per hour, just recently supersonics (700+) were runing. Aircraft have gone from walking speed to well over mach 6 (5000+), rouckets of course go far faster. Oh and gas milage and the rest for cars a decade or so old are fairly bad by current standards. (Top fuel efficent cars from the dealership can get up to 100 mpg, thou few are very drivable.) Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Nov 28 19:12 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1047" "Fri" "28" "November" "1997" "22:10:58" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "33" "Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA14022 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 19:12:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin51.mail.aol.com (mrin51.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.161]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA14011 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 19:12:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin51.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id WAA10049; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 22:10:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971128221058_681584941@mrin51.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1046 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 22:10:58 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/27/97 6:59:13 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> In a message dated 11/24/97 12:31:47 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >> >> >Actually not. Remember that resolution is proportional to the distance >> >from the observed object. A Voyager-like probe could fly by an >> >atmosphere-less planet a kilometer from its surface. That gives it >> >at least a 4x10^13 advantage in resolution compared to a Solar System >> >telescope. Assuming the Voyager-like probe had a camera with a 1cm >> >lens, the Solar System telescope would need to be at _least_ >> >4,000,000,000 kilometers in diameter to equal it. >> >> I.E. about 10 light secounds. Lunar orbit is 3 light secounds, earth orbit >> is about 960 light secounds. So a 10 light secound array isn't that big of >> a deal. Certainly far cheaper and quicker then launching a interstellar >> probe. >> >Huh? >4,000,000,000 km / 300,000 km/s = 13,333 s = 3.7 hours. >Somebody's wrong... > >-- Zenon Woops, confused mps with Kps. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Nov 29 03:54 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3059" "Sat" "29" "November" "1997" "05:54:36" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "80" "Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA19676 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 03:54:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id DAA19652 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 03:54:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA13441; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 05:54:37 -0600 Message-Id: <9711291154.AA13441@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <971128221055_632653091@mrin39> from "KellySt@aol.com" at Nov 28, 97 10:10:55 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3058 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 05:54:36 -0600 (CST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 11/27/97 3:09:43 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>That is a big deal! Do you have any idea how to do VLBI with >>visible wavelengths? >>If so, there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you. >>We can do VLBI with microwave wavelengths because it's just barely >>possible to measure phase with them (and thus possible to receive >>multiple signals and constructively interfere them appropriately). >>We _can't_ do VLBI with infrared and shorter wavelengths. It _might_ >>be possible to do it in the future, but don't bank on it. >Actualy we do currently do VLBI with optical ground telescopes, and NASA is >tinkering with a project to scatter 1 meter drone scopes across an area of >hundreds of miles of lunar surface. We do LBI with optical ground telescopes. So far as I know, VLBI is impossible with known technology. The V in VLBI stands for "Very". What that means is that the elements are so far apart that they aren't rigidly locked wrt to each other within the tolerance of about 1/4 the working wavelength. The moon's surface provides a very stable nearly rigid "structure" to lock a bunch of elements wrt to each other, but this isn't necessary with VLBI. >>>>> Or funding sources that much more patent? If it take a half >>>>>century to get results, a inteligent person will wait a couple >>>>>decades for faster cheaper systems. >>>>Not if those "faster cheaper" systems aren't going to be much faster or >>>>much cheaper. >>>When have we not developed much better systems after a few decades? >>For instance, automobiles. Automotive technology has gotten a bit >>better, but a 1960's Cobra can race competetively with anything >>we can build today of similar weight/size. A 1940's Volkswagon >>is still one of the most fuel efficient vehicles you can drive. >>Cars are a bit better, but not outrageously better, than several >>decades ago. >Cars speeds are governed by highway speed limits. Not on the racetrack. >Unrestricted the max speed >for a car a hundred years ago was tens of miles per hour, just recently >supersonics (700+) were runing. Not on the racetrack. Admittedly there was a vast improvement in automotive technology between 100 and 50 years ago. However, since then improvement has largely leveled off. >Oh and gas milage and the rest for cars a decade or so old are fairly bad by >current standards. (Top fuel efficent cars from the dealership can get up to >100 mpg, thou few are very drivable.) Anyone knows that car fuel efficiency depends upon the car's size/weight. Comparing cars of equivalent size/weight, we haven't improved gas mileage much. Well, since you seem unconvinced by what I deemed a blatant example, I'll give another--small arms. Today's military small arms don't significantly outperform those from 40 or 50 years ago except in improved reliability. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Nov 30 23:52 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4119" "Mon" "1" "December" "1997" "02:51:38" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "114" "Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA15790 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 23:52:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin41.mail.aol.com (mrin41.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.151]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA15781 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 23:52:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin41.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id CAA29429; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 02:51:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971201025135_1727982716@mrin41.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 4118 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 02:51:38 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/29/97 5:54:21 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>In a message dated 11/27/97 3:09:43 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: > >>>That is a big deal! Do you have any idea how to do VLBI with >>>visible wavelengths? > >>>If so, there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you. > >>>We can do VLBI with microwave wavelengths because it's just barely >>>possible to measure phase with them (and thus possible to receive >>>multiple signals and constructively interfere them appropriately). > >>>We _can't_ do VLBI with infrared and shorter wavelengths. It _might_ >>>be possible to do it in the future, but don't bank on it. > >>Actualy we do currently do VLBI with optical ground telescopes, and NASA is >>tinkering with a project to scatter 1 meter drone scopes across an area of >>hundreds of miles of lunar surface. > >We do LBI with optical ground telescopes. So far as I know, VLBI is >impossible with known technology. > >The V in VLBI stands for "Very". What that means is that the elements >are so far apart that they aren't rigidly locked wrt to each other >within the tolerance of about 1/4 the working wavelength. > >The moon's surface provides a very stable nearly rigid "structure" >to lock a bunch of elements wrt to each other, but this isn't necessary >with VLBI. A few sats parked on lunar soil is hardly a structure "rigidly locked to each other within the tolerance of about 1/4 the working wavelength." Also we do synthetic appiture imaging over 100's of yards or even kilometers of fighters and space craft. So if you prefer we could consider that as an example of VLBI using one insterment over a period of time. >>>>>> Or funding sources that much more patent? If it take a half >>>>>>century to get results, a inteligent person will wait a couple >>>>>>decades for faster cheaper systems. > >>>>>Not if those "faster cheaper" systems aren't going to be much faster or >>>>>much cheaper. > >>>>When have we not developed much better systems after a few decades? > >>>For instance, automobiles. Automotive technology has gotten a bit >>>better, but a 1960's Cobra can race competetively with anything >>>we can build today of similar weight/size. A 1940's Volkswagon >>>is still one of the most fuel efficient vehicles you can drive. > >>>Cars are a bit better, but not outrageously better, than several >>>decades ago. > >>Cars speeds are governed by highway speed limits. > >Not on the racetrack. Especial on race tracks. >>Unrestricted the max speed >>for a car a hundred years ago was tens of miles per hour, just recently >>supersonics (700+) were runing. > >Not on the racetrack. So? .. actually it was on a race track. >Admittedly there was a vast improvement in automotive technology >between 100 and 50 years ago. However, since then improvement >has largely leveled off. You really need to read more. Auto tech has imptoved dramitically in performance, effocency and cleanlyness. Sports cars now produce more horsepower with engines that were tiny by 1960's standards, while producing about 1/40th the polution, and with better relyability then any car of the 60's. >>Oh and gas milage and the rest for cars a decade or so old are fairly bad by >>current standards. (Top fuel efficent cars from the dealership can get up to >>100 mpg, thou few are very drivable.) > >Anyone knows that car fuel efficiency depends upon the car's >size/weight. Comparing cars of equivalent size/weight, we haven't >improved gas mileage much. False again. >Well, since you seem unconvinced by what I deemed a blatant example, >I'll give another--small arms. Today's military small arms don't >significantly outperform those from 40 or 50 years ago except in >improved reliability. Theres no reason to since the military personel of today can't point significantly more acurately then those of 40-50 years ago. Top end competitian and hunting guns are much more accurate (pistols that keep a pattern within 3 inches at a could hundred yards are on the market) but they'ld serve no military purpose. This is geting tedious and way off topic. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 1 00:03 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2263" "Mon" "1" "December" "1997" "03:02:32" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "51" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA18926 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 00:03:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin46.mail.aol.com (mrin46.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.156]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA18907 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 00:03:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin46.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id DAA14851; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 03:02:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971201030232_289997822@mrin46.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2262 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 03:02:32 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 11/29/97 8:53:20 AM, you wrote: >On Sunday, November 23, 1997 4:55 PM, KellySt@aol.com >[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: >> >> Why? I thought everyone was prewtty comfortable with a phased array >> emmiter >> cluster? (See details in recent Fuel/Sail is dumb responce) >> >Its not that I don't think it will work as advertised as far as beaming >power to a sail, what I am not comfortable with is station keeping, ALL of >the components of the system will experience thrust as a direct result of >the power being transmitted. The laws of physics can't be thwarted, it will >still require as much or more reaction mass as any other concept (probably >more) the only difference is that it isn't necessary for the fuel to be >aboard the vehicle. True, but since they can stay at home where normal ships can get at them and refuel them thats not as big a concern. Also the power sats don't have to be light and easy to move. >Although not impossible, the design and logistics of such a system are >enormously complex, and we don't have a very good track record with complex >systems. Perhaps the simplest idea would be to "waste" half of the energy >by reflecting in the direction opposite the emitter to balance the thrust. >I don't know, but it sounds awfully complicated. The emiters don't really bother me. They are basically just big O'Neil style power sats, and their thrust might be easy to ofset by the solar sail effect from their solar collectors. Keeping the beam cleanly focused into a beam that the sail can get into and get balenced thrust from over widly varing distences without refocusing is a bigger challege, and we'll probably need to waste the vast bulk of the power outside of the central sweet spot the sail needs to stay in (and that sweet spot will need to be far larger then the sail) so its efficency will be terrible. But unless we come up with some much better physics trics it seem about as good as we'll be able to manage. At least the fuel/sail system itself seems prety solid and relyable. No cryo tanks or unstable fuels. Pretty simple brute force tech. But yeah a nice trick with inertia or zero-point energy would be really nice, but we can't even guess at any of that. Kelly >Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 1 05:35 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3762" "Mon" "1" "December" "1997" "07:35:12" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "97" "Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA13291 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 05:34:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id FAA13284 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 05:34:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA28368; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 07:35:13 -0600 Message-Id: <9712011335.AA28368@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <971201025135_1727982716@mrin41.mail.aol.com> from "KellySt@aol.com" at Dec 1, 97 02:51:38 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3761 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 07:35:12 -0600 (CST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 11/29/97 5:54:21 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>>Actualy we do currently do VLBI with optical ground telescopes, and NASA is >>>tinkering with a project to scatter 1 meter drone scopes across an area of >>>hundreds of miles of lunar surface. >>We do LBI with optical ground telescopes. So far as I know, VLBI is >>impossible with known technology. >>The V in VLBI stands for "Very". What that means is that the elements >>are so far apart that they aren't rigidly locked wrt to each other >>within the tolerance of about 1/4 the working wavelength. >>The moon's surface provides a very stable nearly rigid "structure" >>to lock a bunch of elements wrt to each other, but this isn't necessary >>with VLBI. >A few sats parked on lunar soil is hardly a structure "rigidly >locked to each other within the tolerance of about 1/4 the >working wavelength." Yes it is, actually. It's nearly perfect--and among the best we can hope for in the Solar System. Unlike Earth, it has extremely little seismic activity, and unlike most larger bodies in the Solar System, it has no atmosphere. That makes it a big hunk of rock which doesn't vibrate much. You can stick things on it and be sure they're not moving with respect to each other. >Also we do synthetic appiture imaging over 100's of yards or even kilometers >of fighters and space craft. So if you prefer we could consider that as an >example of VLBI using one insterment over a period of time. >>>>Cars are a bit better, but not outrageously better, than several >>>>decades ago. >>>Cars speeds are governed by highway speed limits. >>Not on the racetrack. >Especial on race tracks. Huh? What? You're saying that car speeds are governed by highway speed limits on race tracks? >>>Unrestricted the max speed >>>for a car a hundred years ago was tens of miles per hour, just recently >>>supersonics (700+) were runing. >>Not on the racetrack. >So? .. actually it was on a race track. "The racetrack" refers to racing tracks on which races like Indy and Monaco are run. >>Admittedly there was a vast improvement in automotive technology >>between 100 and 50 years ago. However, since then improvement >>has largely leveled off. >You really need to read more. Auto tech has imptoved dramitically in >performance, effocency and cleanlyness. Sports cars now produce more >horsepower with engines that were tiny by 1960's standards, while producing >about 1/40th the polution, and with better relyability then any car of the >60's. The size of the engines are smaller, but not much lighter. >>Well, since you seem unconvinced by what I deemed a blatant example, >>I'll give another--small arms. Today's military small arms don't >>significantly outperform those from 40 or 50 years ago except in >>improved reliability. >Theres no reason to since the military personel of today can't point >significantly more acurately then those of 40-50 years ago. Actually, there is every reason to increase the performance of small arms in terms of reducing ammo size/weight, which has a dramatic impact on logistics. (It also allows carrying more ammunition and weight). Also, if ammunition size/weight can be dramatically reduced, it allows firing much larger bursts, which _does_ increase hit probability. However, the physics of aerodynamics and chemistry of explosives has prevented us from making any dramatic advances in small arms. Logistics concerns _have_ prompted reducing ammo size/weight, but at the expense of performance. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 1 05:49 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2276" "Mon" "1" "December" "1997" "07:50:14" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "52" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA15662 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 05:49:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id FAA15635 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 05:49:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA28762; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 07:50:15 -0600 Message-Id: <9712011350.AA28762@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <971201030232_289997822@mrin46.mail.aol.com> from "KellySt@aol.com" at Dec 1, 97 03:02:32 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2275 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 07:50:14 -0600 (CST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>> Why? I thought everyone was prewtty comfortable with a phased array >>> emmiter >>> cluster? (See details in recent Fuel/Sail is dumb responce) >>Its not that I don't think it will work as advertised as far as beaming >>power to a sail, It doesn't work as advertised. If you have a bunch of emitters, they are most effective when "shoulder to shoulder". Spreading them apart in an attempt to decrease spot size will _reduce_ the amount of power reaching the target. >>what I am not comfortable with is station keeping, ALL of >>the components of the system will experience thrust as a direct result of >>the power being transmitted. The laws of physics can't be thwarted, it will >>still require as much or more reaction mass as any other concept (probably >>more) the only difference is that it isn't necessary for the fuel to be >>aboard the vehicle. This actually isn't a concern. The effect of thrust is inversely proportional to mass, and the emitters are VERY HEAVY compared to the thrust they emit in beams. This should be intuitively obvious. If you had a laser emitter which could impart decent thrust on itself, you could use _that_ as a photon rocket. (Then you wouldn't even have to worry about focussing the beams and you could use it for deceleration also.) The real concern is whether you can build that the huge honking emitter (or emitter array) in the first place. It's dizzyingly massive and big. If you can build it, then it's not going to go anywhere just because of the (relatively) puny beam it emits. >At least the fuel/sail system itself seems prety solid and relyable. No cryo >tanks or unstable fuels. Pretty simple brute force tech. You can say Forwards pure sail system is also "simple brute force tech". Actually, it requires much less technology than this "fuel/sail" idea. It doesn't require exotic fusion technology. However, the sheer size of that "brute force" is inconceivably massive. Especially when you consider that a modified design would only require a fraction of a percent of the effort. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 1 08:04 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1909" "Mon" "1" "December" "1997" "08:13:55" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "53" "starship-design: Beamed Power (was: Perihelion Maneuver)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA18556 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 08:04:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA18539 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 08:04:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p15.gnt.com [204.49.68.220]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA08453; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 10:04:53 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 10:04:45 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCFE40.8D297E00.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1908 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'KellySt@aol.com'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Beamed Power (was: Perihelion Maneuver) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 08:13:55 -0600 On Monday, December 01, 1997 2:03 AM, KellySt@aol.com [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: > > True, but since they can stay at home where normal ships can get at them > and > refuel them thats not as big a concern. Also the power sats don't have to > be > light and easy to move. Umm, not only do you have to fuel the power sats but you have to fuel the transports too... > The emiters don't really bother me. They are basically just big O'Neil > style > power sats, and their thrust might be easy to ofset by the solar sail > effect > from their solar collectors. Keeping the beam cleanly focused into a > beam > that the sail can get into and get balenced thrust from over widly varing > distences without refocusing is a bigger challege, and we'll probably need > to > waste the vast bulk of the power outside of the central sweet spot the > sail > needs to stay in (and that sweet spot will need to be far larger then the > sail) so its efficency will be terrible. But unless we come up with some > much better physics trics it seem about as good as we'll be able to > manage. BTW, it is totally unnecessary for the sats to be in phase if you are using a laser sail concept. You are simply delivering a concentrated replacement for sunlight, it doesn't even have to be monochromatic. I'm not familiar enough with your microwave concept to know if you NEED coherent microwave energy at the the receiving end. > At least the fuel/sail system itself seems prety solid and relyable. No > cryo > tanks or unstable fuels. Pretty simple brute force tech. Lee (o o) ------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo----- ---- PLEASE NOTE: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That When the Consumer Is Not Directly Observing This Product, It May Cease to Exist or Will Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 1 08:05 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4331" "Mon" "1" "December" "1997" "08:53:08" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "94" "Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA18669 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 08:05:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA18635 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 08:05:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p15.gnt.com [204.49.68.220]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA08462; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 10:05:00 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 10:04:56 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCFE40.934891E0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 4330 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 08:53:08 -0600 On Monday, December 01, 1997 7:35 AM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > > Huh? What? You're saying that car speeds are governed by highway > speed limits on race tracks? IMSA and NASCAR have required governors on race vehicles for years... > The size of the engines are smaller, but not much lighter. Hmm, you should try to lift the four cylinder engine in my old Willy's wagon. > >Theres no reason to since the military personel of today can't point > >significantly more acurately then those of 40-50 years ago. > > Actually, there is every reason to increase the performance of small > arms in terms of reducing ammo size/weight, which has a dramatic > impact on logistics. (It also allows carrying more ammunition and > weight). Also, if ammunition size/weight can be dramatically reduced, > it allows firing much larger bursts, which _does_ increase hit > probability. Actually, when the US Army went looking for a new weapon to replace their WWII vintage rifles their was quite a bit of heated debate. It seems that of all the ammunition expended in WWII only one round in a million actually hit someone. One faction wanted to purchase a more accurate semi-automatic weapon and force the troops to learn to AIM them. The other faction claimed that the lives of our soldiers were more important than hitting a target and that this would be best achieved with a fully automatic weapon that would at least (hopefully) force the enemy to keep their heads down whether we hit anything or not. As you can see, the M14 lost and the M16 won. Guess which weapon is preferred by special forces snipers and civilian competition shooters? I think the prevalence of alternative arms (mostly illegal)in Vietnam may have finally changed the minds of the powers that be. Evidence the Squad Automatic Weapon competition. The Army has since decided that only a few troops actually need fully automatic weapons and has changed their strategy. Meanwhile, we are stuck with all of those M16s.. > However, the physics of aerodynamics and chemistry of explosives has > prevented us from making any dramatic advances in small arms. > Logistics concerns _have_ prompted reducing ammo size/weight, but > at the expense of performance. There have in fact been a plethora of advancements in both weapon and ammunition size, weight, and performance. These in turn have necessitated improvements in armor and tactics as well. Even so, modern body armor is no match for the weapons that are now freely available on the market - weapons that have been developed in the last few years. Just ask your local policeman. ************************************************************ Now to try and put this back on topic... Scientific and technological advancements tend to run in cycles, short spurts followed by a period of consolidation and incremental improvement. Most theorist think that we are nearing the end of a slow period and should begin seeing new breakthroughs in the next twenty years. If for no other reason than the sheer amount of new information that we are acquiring. Looking back at the past fifty years, only a few of the advancements we have made were even dreamed of, most were simply so far beyond the bounds of what was then known as to be inconceivable. I remember when the laser was invented. There were all sorts of predictions of the things it would do for us, a lot of which never happened. There have been many other things it has done though, things that we never even dreamed of then, simply because there were too many layers of technology missing. Today's innocuous idea may become tomorrow's wonder invention, there simply isn't any way to tell in advance. The only thing that is certain is that things will have changed enormously fifty years from now, and other than perhaps the broadest of outlines, we cannot really predict what will happen. Lee (o o) ------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo----- ---- He who thro' vast immensity can pierce, See worlds on worlds compose one universe, Observe how system into system runs, What other planets circle other suns, What varied being peoples every star, May tell why Heav'n has made us as we are. - Alexander Pope From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 1 08:05 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2426" "Mon" "1" "December" "1997" "10:03:16" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "55" "starship-design: Beamed Power (was: Perihelion Maneuver)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA18704 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 08:05:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA18654 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 08:05:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p15.gnt.com [204.49.68.220]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA08485; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 10:05:07 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 10:05:03 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCFE40.97AB9DE0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2425 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Beamed Power (was: Perihelion Maneuver) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 10:03:16 -0600 On Monday, December 01, 1997 7:50 AM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > > It doesn't work as advertised. If you have a bunch of emitters, they > are most effective when "shoulder to shoulder". Spreading them apart > in an attempt to decrease spot size will _reduce_ the amount of power > reaching the target. I don't recall having ever seen anybody claim that the array was as powerful or as efficient as a single huge emitter, then again I have never seen anyone suggest that we should build a single large emitter either. Just exactly what point are you arguing? That we should build one large emitter? Or that we should give up the whole idea just because the efficiency of the array is less than a single large emitter? > This actually isn't a concern. The effect of thrust is inversely > proportional to mass, and the emitters are VERY HEAVY compared to > the thrust they emit in beams. Isaac, this isn't like you, you didn't do the math! > This should be intuitively obvious. If you had a laser emitter which > could impart decent thrust on itself, you could use _that_ as a photon > rocket. (Then you wouldn't even have to worry about focussing the > beams and you could use it for deceleration also.) Ibid. (What is intuitive is that if it can impart decent thrust to the sail, then it must also be imparting an equal amount of thrust to itself. Total net acceleration in the system has to be zero.) > The real concern is whether you can build that the huge honking > emitter (or emitter array) in the first place. It's dizzyingly > massive and big. If you can build it, then it's not going to go > anywhere just because of the (relatively) puny beam it emits. Ibid. Isaac, I can rarely fault the technical correctness of your arguments (you usually take the time to at least do the math), but you seem to take off on minor tangents that really have no bearing on the original topic. NASA, JPL and a host of others seem thoroughly convinced that the concept will work. All of these people are specialists in this field with published papers and the respect of their peers, I see no reason for us (a bunch of amateurs) to pursue this argument any further. Lee (o o) ------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo----- ---- "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 1 11:46 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5311" "Mon" "1" "December" "1997" "13:45:44" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "123" "Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA27498 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 11:46:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (mouse.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.46]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA27438 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 11:46:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00880; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 13:45:47 -0600 Message-Id: <9712011945.AA00880@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <01BCFE40.934891E0.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Dec 1, 97 08:53:08 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 5310 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 13:45:44 -0600 (CST) L. Parker wrote: >On Monday, December 01, 1997 7:35 AM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] >wrote: >> Huh? What? You're saying that car speeds are governed by highway >> speed limits on race tracks? >IMSA and NASCAR have required governors on race vehicles for years... But not to highway speed limits. >> The size of the engines are smaller, but not much lighter. >Hmm, you should try to lift the four cylinder engine in my old Willy's >wagon. I don't feel like lifting a 4 cylinder engine in a 1997 model full size sedan either. >> >Theres no reason to since the military personel of today can't point >> >significantly more acurately then those of 40-50 years ago. >> Actually, there is every reason to increase the performance of small >> arms in terms of reducing ammo size/weight, which has a dramatic >> impact on logistics. (It also allows carrying more ammunition and >> weight). Also, if ammunition size/weight can be dramatically reduced, >> it allows firing much larger bursts, which _does_ increase hit >> probability. >Actually, when the US Army went looking for a new weapon to replace their >WWII vintage rifles their was quite a bit of heated debate. Yes they did. There has been a _lot_ of effort put into finding something a lot better to equip our infantry with. However, we never have dramatically improved the small arm since the development of the assault rifle. >It seems that >of all the ammunition expended in WWII only one round in a million actually >hit someone. One faction wanted to purchase a more accurate semi-automatic >weapon and force the troops to learn to AIM them. >The other faction claimed that the lives of our soldiers were more >important than hitting a target and that this would be best achieved with a >fully automatic weapon that would at least (hopefully) force the enemy to >keep their heads down whether we hit anything or not. As you can see, the >M14 lost and the M16 won. Guess which weapon is preferred by special forces >snipers and civilian competition shooters? The M14 and M16 are not that different, really. Neither is twice as much anything compared to the other. OTOH, imagine what effect reducing ammunition size/weight to 1% of a 5.56mm round could have. With 2000 round magazines, every infantryman would have the firepower of a squad level support weapon, and could afford to fire 15 round bursts all day. Even with the increased expenditure of ammo, logistics would be greatly simplified, with enough ammunition for a platoon being able to be carried by a single person. But you'll just have to imagine it, because it's not going to happen in the foreseeable future. >> However, the physics of aerodynamics and chemistry of explosives has >> prevented us from making any dramatic advances in small arms. >> Logistics concerns _have_ prompted reducing ammo size/weight, but >> at the expense of performance. >There have in fact been a plethora of advancements in both weapon and >ammunition size, weight, and performance. Small advancements, yes. Significant ones, yes. But dramatic advances? A WWII era BAR still looks pretty good after all these years. >These in turn have necessitated >improvements in armor and tactics as well. Even so, modern body armor is no >match for the weapons that are now freely available on the market - weapons >that have been developed in the last few years. Just ask your local >policeman. Umm...modern body armor is no match for the weapons feely available in the 19th century. A vintage Winchester .30'6 will slice through a "bulletproof vest" just as readily as a modern .30 hunting rifle. Modern police body armor is meant to deal with low power pistols and maybe certain shotgun loads, but never had a chance against a rifle. Military body armor is meant to deal with shrapnel (on a lucky day). >Scientific and technological advancements tend to run in cycles, short >spurts followed by a period of consolidation and incremental improvement. >Most theorist think that we are nearing the end of a slow period and should >begin seeing new breakthroughs in the next twenty years. If for no other >reason than the sheer amount of new information that we are acquiring. Getting back to the point of this discussion, I was making the claim that 10%c was good enough to start launching flyby probes. Kelly disputed this, and among other things noted that you wouldn't launch such a thing if you only had to wait a couple decades to acheive better. I replied saying that you would if you didn't think those next couple decades would make enough of a difference. To put some perspective on this, consider a flyby mission to Alpha Centauri which are around 4 light years away. A 10%c mission would get there in 40 years from the launch date. What if we wait 20 years? _If_ those 20 years allow launching a 20%c probe, then it could get there as fast as the earlier mission possibility. Can you bet on doubling performance in just 20 years? Maybe, maybe not. There are plenty of examples of technology which haven't "doubled" their performance in as much time. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 1 13:40 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5318" "Mon" "1" "December" "1997" "13:40:12" "-0800" "Ken Wharton" "wharton@physics.ucla.edu" nil "95" "starship-design: Antiprotons" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA18204 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 13:40:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from physics.ucla.edu (physics.ucla.edu [128.97.23.13]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA18029 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 13:40:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from watt by physics.ucla.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA12128; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 13:40:11 -0800 Received: by watt (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA28200; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 13:40:12 -0800 Message-Id: <199712012140.NAA28200@watt> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 5317 From: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Antiprotons Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 13:40:12 -0800 Hey all... The week before last I went to the American Physical Society Plasma Physics conference in Pittsburgh. I've been to the conference a few times, but this was the first year they actually had a special section on plasma thrusters for spacecraft. Sure, it was thrown into a tiny room on the far end of the convention center, and there were only ten short talks, but it was something. Most of the talks, though, weren't really usable for interstellar spacecraft. People are building small plasma thrusters for use on satellites, and some people talked about bulding large versions to get to Mars in 3 months instead of 6. (Although one guy actually proposed building an enormous magnetic mirror spacecraft that, if everything worked perfectly, would still take 170 days to get to Mars!) A large magnetoplasma thruster prototype has been built and people are doing actual research. However, there were a few talks that went into interstellar drives, and one in particular (from Penn State) sounded very interesting. (That is, interesting in the sense that it might be possible to use the idea in the next 50 years) The idea (which may have been discussed here already?) is to use small quantities of antiprotons to catalyze a hybrid fission/fusion pellet. The idea, which has some experimental support (Phys Rev C, v 45, p2332), is based on the observation that antiprotons can catalyze large fission and neutron yields in uranium pellets. If you can get 10^11 antiprotons in a small area, this could heat a small target to many keV and possibly create conditions that could ignite a fusion reaction. Their suggested design was to use a series of small (42ng) DHe3 (or DT) droplets, each doped with 2% U238. These are injected, one at a time, into an electromagentic trap that contains 10^11 antiprotons. 0.5% of the antiprotons annihilate, catalyze fission of the U238, which heats the DHe3. Then they raise the voltage on the electromagnetic trap, which seperates out the negatively charged particles (the pellet electrons and unused antiprotons) from the positive ions (the hot D and He3). The positive ions then fuse at a temperature of 100KeV, giving off 15kJ of net energy. The used 5 10^8 antiprotons are then replenished, the antiprotons are put back in the original state, and the cycle repeats every 20ms with a net average power of 0.75MW. (Or 133MW for DT targets). The radiation and fusion products occur inside a silicon carbide shell. The resulting plasma (Si and C ions) is channeled out of a hole to provide thrust. They are currently designing a small, unmanned spacecraft based on the assumption that they could get this to work if they had enough antiprotons. The plan is not to make it to a star, but rather something more modest that will travel 10,000 A.U. in a 50 year flight. Their initial design parameters have a 100kg dry mass and 400kg of fuel. Of the fuel, most of it is the SiC shell, and only 5.7 micrograms are antiprotons, which they expect will be about a years supply from Fermilab 10 years from now (also they predict it wil be 0.14 micrograms/year by 2000; don't know what it is now). All the fuel is burned in the first 4.4 years; the rest of the time the ship coasts. The alternate design, using DT pellets, burns all the fuel in only 0.1years and still makes it out to the same distance in the same time, but it needs 26 micrograms of antiprotons. (Not sure why it needs more... they didn't go into the DT simulations in too much detail, so I'm not sure which of the numbers I've given apply for DT). They also passed out a paper that was presented at a Propulsion Symposium in October, which had more details but was a different concept; it used fewer anitprotons (30ng), a 3-day burn, designed for outer solar system missions (Jupiter in 7.5 months). It also relied on ion beams to compress much larger fuel pellets, instead of the electromagnetic trap design they presented at the conference, so I'm not sure it's comparable at all. In the paper, though, they looked into engine radiation, and most of the dangerous stuff was neutrons; they put in 2.2 meters of LiH shielding to protect a crew. Less shielding is needed to protect the antiprotons themselves. They also had a scheme to vent an extra 60MW of heat; much more than in the DHe3 interstellar proposal. Anyway, I thought it was interesting. If anyone wants more info, that's really all I know, so I'm not the one to ask. The people at Penn State to hunt down are G.A. Smith, R.A. Lewis (Penn State Physics Dept.), B. Dundore, J. Fulmer (Penn State Aerospace Engineering Dept) and S. Chakrabarti (Penn State Mech. Eng. Dept). I assume that with enough antiprotons, this scheme could be scaled up for an interstellar spaceship. But the key problem is that most of the fuel is the SiC shell that provides the thrust; less than 0.1% of the fuel is the DHe3 pellets. So the ratio of the mass of the ejected fuel to the extractable kinetic energy from the fuel is huge; 250,000 rather than the the theoretical 250 that a pure DHe3 engine could provide. If there was a better way to couple the fusion reaction into fewer, faster thrust particles, there would be a lot of room for improvement. Ken From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 1 15:59 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3198" "Mon" "1" "December" "1997" "17:41:18" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "73" "RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA01954 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 15:59:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA01920 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 15:59:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p29.gnt.com [204.49.68.234]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA22983; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 17:58:17 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 17:58:02 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCFE82.AABF5240.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 3197 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 17:41:18 -0600 On Monday, December 01, 1997 1:46 PM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > > Getting back to the point of this discussion, I was making the claim > that 10%c was good enough to start launching flyby probes. It is. > Kelly disputed this, and among other things noted that you wouldn't > launch such a thing if you only had to wait a couple decades to > acheive better. Maybe. > I replied saying that you would if you didn't think those next > couple decades would make enough of a difference. Who can tell? I'm not a fortune teller. > To put some perspective on this, consider a flyby mission to > Alpha Centauri which are around 4 light years away. A 10%c > mission would get there in 40 years from the launch date. > What if we wait 20 years? _If_ those 20 years allow launching > a 20%c probe, then it could get there as fast as the earlier > mission possibility. > > Can you bet on doubling performance in just 20 years? Maybe, > maybe not. There are plenty of examples of technology which > haven't "doubled" their performance in as much time. Well, actually I think you are both right. But it isn't just a matter of time. It is a matter of economics and above all, politics. Those sorts of arguments did not stop the Apollo program, which in hind sight if we had waited twenty years, we COULD have done much easier and quicker. (There are currently plans to return using an improved lander.) But we went ahead and did it anyway, at enormous cost, the brute force way. On the other hand, it is working exactly the other way around at the moment... I have no problem with unmanned probes at 0.1 c, I have already stated on this forum that we need to start sending out unmanned probes at 0.03 c right now...so that we will be getting meaningful information back in fifty years or so. What I don't believe in is human interstellar travel at those velocities. Hardware is cheap, life isn't. Unless we can push the 99% c envelope, we aren't going to be able to do it. Think about the average lifetime of some of the relatively mundane things you take for granted: socks, soap, notepaper, air filters, toilet bowl valves, doorknobs, light bulbs, ball bearings, switches, circuit boards, power supplies, etc. The MTBF on ALL of these items is currently way below 10 years. I'm not denying that we CAN build these and other items on an interstellar ship to last this long. Just suggesting that we can't do it economically at this time and probably not in the foreseeable future. The alternative is to build in sufficient redundant capacity to support the extra mass of enough spares to build two or even three ships or reduce the round trip (you one way types out there just hold on and don't shoot me) travel time to less than the MTBF rate of the major systems at least. I use round trip as a safety margin in case the mission has to be aborted. Personally, I would prefer a four fold safety margin. (Now you can shoot me.) Lee (o o) ------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo----- ---- Where are they? - Enrico Fermi (Fermi's Paradox, sans preamble, 1943-50) From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 1 15:59 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2053" "Mon" "1" "December" "1997" "17:57:43" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "49" "RE: starship-design: Antiprotons" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA02349 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 15:59:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA02327 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 15:59:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p29.gnt.com [204.49.68.234]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA22996; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 17:58:23 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 17:58:19 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCFE82.B4C452E0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2052 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Ken Wharton'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Antiprotons Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 17:57:43 -0600 On Monday, December 01, 1997 3:40 PM, Ken Wharton [SMTP:wharton@physics.ucla.edu] wrote: > > Hey all... > > The week before last I went to the American Physical Society Plasma > Physics conference in Pittsburgh. I've been to the conference a few > times, but this was the first year they actually had a special section > on plasma thrusters for spacecraft. Sure, it was thrown into a tiny > room on the far end of the convention center, and there were only ten > short talks, but it was something. > > Most of the talks, though, weren't really usable for interstellar > spacecraft. People are building small plasma thrusters for use on > satellites, and some people talked about bulding large versions to get > to Mars in 3 months instead of 6. (Although one guy actually proposed > building an enormous magnetic mirror spacecraft that, if everything > worked perfectly, would still take 170 days to get to Mars!) A large > magnetoplasma thruster prototype has been built and people are doing > actual research. > > However, there were a few talks that went into interstellar drives, and > one in particular (from Penn State) sounded very interesting. (That is, > interesting in the sense that it might be possible to use the idea in > the next 50 years) The idea (which may have been discussed here > already?) is to use small quantities of antiprotons to catalyze a hybrid > fission/fusion pellet. > I've posted this here before, but here is a link to their web page for all who are interested. This is one of the few concepts I think has a real chance at succeeding... http://antimatter.phys.psu.edu/ICAN-II_Paper/index.html Lee (o o) ------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo----- ---- He who thro' vast immensity can pierce, See worlds on worlds compose one universe, Observe how system into system runs, What other planets circle other suns, What varied being peoples every star, May tell why Heav'n has made us as we are. - Alexander Pope From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 1 20:56 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["917" "Mon" "1" "December" "1997" "22:56:38" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "20" "Re: starship-design: Beamed Power (was: Perihelion Maneuver)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA13518 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 20:56:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (mouse.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.46]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA13508 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 20:56:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA01888; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 22:56:39 -0600 Message-Id: <9712020456.AA01888@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <01BCFE40.8D297E00.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Dec 1, 97 08:13:55 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 916 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: starship-design: Beamed Power (was: Perihelion Maneuver) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 22:56:38 -0600 (CST) L. Parker wrote: >BTW, it is totally unnecessary for the sats to be in phase if you are using >a laser sail concept. You are simply delivering a concentrated replacement >for sunlight, it doesn't even have to be monochromatic. I'm not familiar >enough with your microwave concept to know if you NEED coherent microwave >energy at the the receiving end. It is necessary because a coherent beam will travel with less spread. With a target spot of 1km, 1mm wavelength, and a target distance of 36,000,000,000km (2 week acceleration to .2c), an aperture with a diameter around 36,000km is needed. Splitting that up into smaller emitters will require all of them to be emitting in the proper phase to produce a coherent beam. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 2 16:46 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4584" "Tue" "2" "December" "1997" "18:26:28" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "102" "RE: starship-design: Beamed Power (was: Perihelion Maneuver)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA13194 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 16:46:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA13164 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 16:46:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p21.gnt.com [204.49.68.226]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA19352; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 18:45:37 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 18:45:25 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCFF52.73B871C0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 4583 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Beamed Power (was: Perihelion Maneuver) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 18:26:28 -0600 On Monday, December 01, 1997 10:45 PM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > The claim is that with an array of widely spaced emitters, you > would be able to focus the beam over the interplanetary > distances needed to accelerate something to high speed without > a planet-sized lens. I must have missed that part, I agree that the lens or emitter size is firmly established by the focal length of the beam and that you must have one or the other. Was someone suggesting that you don't need the lens? I stated that I didn't believe the lens would work, not that we didn't need one. > I'm arguing that light sail schemes for interplanetary launches > require heroically huge emitters and focussing systems, and that > you don't make the total job easier by breaking it up into > smaller bits. Well, that is basically the same as what I said. It is an extremely complicated and difficult undertaking - either way you do it. > In point of fact, I do agree that a number of smaller emitters > will be easier to design and maintain than a single one. However, > the ideal number of emitters would be relatively small, like a > dozen or a hundred or a thousand, and that they should be "shoulder > to shoulder" flush against each other. And unfortunately, the > job of building them is not easier than building a smaller number > of larger emitters. True, I can just see some of the engineering papers now - "Some Concerns Regarding Thermal Convection Currents and Thermal Blooming Phenomenon in Macro-scale Solid State Devices". Whew! > The reaction against the emitter array would accelerate it > at one millionth of a gee. Assuming you are correct and that I have not misplaced a decimal, at the end of one year you will therefore have a velocity opposite the beam path of 30 meters per second...not counting cumulative effects of the Sun's gravity from breaking your orbit. Actually, I don't think you are _quite_ right. "For every action, there is an equal, and opposite reaction..." IF you are providing 100 g (100 * 10 m/sec^2) = 1,000 m/sec^2 of thrust to the spacecraft then you are also providing the same amount of thrust to the emitter. What is different is the total delta v on each system which is where your mass calculations came in. But they are irrelevant, because in order to maintain station (disregarding steering and attitude correction) it STILL requires ANOTHER 1,000 m/sec^2 of counteracting thrust. This thrust must come from somewhere which was my disagreement with the whole scheme. Unless... We must either: a) leak approximately half of the beam the other way (probably a little less, because some thrust will be provided by the emitter's power reception system (but all such thrust may not be in the proper direction), b) provide a sufficient supply of reaction mass to thrusters on the emitter to do the same thing (no way, might as well put them on the spacecraft in this case), or c) build the emitters into a solar sail which is capable of balancing against BOTH the sun's gravity AND the thrust of the emitter. The latter is by far the most elegant and offers some interesting benefits, such as built in collectors and a potential zero reaction design. > Yes, the laser sail concept can work. It's pretty dizzying how big > a project it is, though. You have to realize that so far every > workable scheme to achieve .3+ c has involved exotic technology > and/or massive engineering feats. Multi-planet sized lenses are > par for the course. I also agree that it will work. However, my final conclusion is somewhat different. I don't think ANY of the concepts so far proposed are really _workable_. Possible with heroic effort yes, workable, no. Of course, I am being very pessimistic because of too many years in an intensive QC environment and I know just how hard it is to design complex systems to be (relatively) reliable. Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- Ernst Eduard Kummer (1810-1893), a German algebraist, was rather poor at arithmetic. Whenever he had occasion to do simple arithmetic in class, he would get his students to help him. Once he had to find 7 x 9. "Seven times nine," he began, "Seven times nine is er -- ah --- ah -- seven times nine is. . . ." "Sixty-one," a student suggested. Kummer wrote 61 on the board. "Sir," said another student, "it should be sixty-nine." "Come, come, gentlemen, it can't be both," Kummer exclaimed. "It must be one or the other." From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 2 16:46 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2118" "Tue" "2" "December" "1997" "18:40:18" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "51" "RE: starship-design: Beamed Power (was: Perihelion Maneuver)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA13271 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 16:46:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA13226 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 16:46:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p21.gnt.com [204.49.68.226]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA19388; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 18:45:48 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 18:45:48 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCFF52.81B2A160.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Length: 2117 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Beamed Power (was: Perihelion Maneuver) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 18:40:18 -0600 On Monday, December 01, 1997 10:57 PM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > > It is necessary because a coherent beam will travel with less spread. > With a target spot of 1km, 1mm wavelength, and a target distance > of 36,000,000,000km (2 week acceleration to .2c), an aperture with a > diameter around 36,000km is needed. Splitting that up into smaller > emitters will require all of them to be emitting in the proper phase > to produce a coherent beam. Sorry, I should have explained myself better. I wasn't suggesting that an incoherent beam wouldn't spread, just that there were other ideas out there that ignore it. There is/was a design for an extremely simple, MECHANICAL laser (trick optics) that could be easily mass produced. It incorporated it's own collector as part of the emitter and produced a collimated beam of incoherent (white) light. Technically, this isn't a laser, but it is darn close and because of the potential of mass producing them by the millions, you COULD build an array of them packed shoulder to shoulder 1,000 km across. In essence, all it is doing is focusing 1,000 km of solar energy into a spot out to a considerable distance. True, since it isn't coherent, intereference will cause the beam to spread faster than a real laser, but the potential efficiency was limited only by the reflectivity of the material used to make the collector/emitter. It could go as high as 95 percent. It vastly increases the acceleration envelope of a solar sail. It also has some interesting potential for industry. Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- Two people are traveling in a balloon over a landscape unknown to them. "Where are we?" one calls down to a passerby. The passerby looks carefully at them and finally yells back, "You're on a balloon!" "He must be a mathematician," says one of the travelers to the other. "Why is that?" "First, he thought awhile before answering. Second, his answer is absolutely precise. And third, it's utterly useless." From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 2 16:46 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["395" "Tue" "2" "December" "1997" "18:42:58" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "13" "RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA13320 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 16:46:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA13245 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 16:46:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p21.gnt.com [204.49.68.226]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA19404; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 18:45:53 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 18:45:54 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCFF52.84E91440.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 394 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 18:42:58 -0600 On Monday, December 01, 1997 11:38 PM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > > I disagree. If I were offered the chance to fly on a 1 way mission > to the Alpha Centauri systems at .2c (where I'd then spend the rest > of my life), I for one would jump at it. I'm sure there are many > others who'd be just as excited to do so. Uh oh, here we go again with THAT argument... Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 2 18:33 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5353" "Tue" "2" "December" "1997" "20:33:29" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "124" "Re: starship-design: Beamed Power (was: Perihelion Maneuver)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA11674 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 18:33:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA11661 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 18:33:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA05541; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 20:33:31 -0600 Message-Id: <9712030233.AA05541@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <01BCFF52.73B871C0.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Dec 2, 97 06:26:28 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 5352 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: starship-design: Beamed Power (was: Perihelion Maneuver) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 20:33:29 -0600 (CST) L. Parker wrote: >On Monday, December 01, 1997 10:45 PM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] >wrote: >> The claim is that with an array of widely spaced emitters, you >> would be able to focus the beam over the interplanetary >> distances needed to accelerate something to high speed without >> a planet-sized lens. >I must have missed that part, I agree that the lens or emitter size is >firmly established by the focal length of the beam and that you must have >one or the other. Was someone suggesting that you don't need the lens? I >stated that I didn't believe the lens would work, not that we didn't need >one. Kelly thought that an array of widely spaced emitters could provide the needed focussing without needing any lens. I myself came up with that idea a while ago, but when I seriously thought about it I realized it didn't work. >> The reaction against the emitter array would accelerate it >> at one millionth of a gee. >Assuming you are correct and that I have not misplaced a decimal, at the >end of one year you will therefore have a velocity opposite the beam path >of 30 meters per second...not counting cumulative effects of the Sun's >gravity from breaking your orbit. Well, in the example I gave I was thinking of acceleration over a period of 2 weeks, not a year. >Actually, I don't think you are _quite_ right. "For every action, there is >an equal, and opposite reaction..." IF you are providing 100 g (100 * 10 >m/sec^2) = 1,000 m/sec^2 of thrust to the spacecraft then you are also >providing the same amount of thrust to the emitter. Yes, it's the same _thrust_, which is a _force_. This force causes acceleration by the formula A=F/M (close enough at low speeds, anyway). It's as if you were on roller skates, and you pushed against an aircraft carrier at dock. Both you and the aircraft carrier experience the same force, and both you and the aircraft carrier are pushed back with the same momentum. However, you go flying back visibly while the effect on the carrier is imperceptible. >What is different is the total delta v on each system which is >where your mass calculations came in. But they are irrelevant, >because in order to maintain station (disregarding steering and >attitude correction) it STILL requires ANOTHER 1,000 m/sec^2 of >counteracting thrust. No you don't. First off, thrust is measured in Newtons (kg m/s^2). In the example I give, the thrust level is 1000 Newtons. The effect on the 1kg sail is to accelerate it by 100 gees. The effect on the 100,000 ton emitter array is to accelerate it by one millionth of a gee. Small enough so that you just shouldn't give a damn about "station keeping". You're in the middle of deep interplanetary space, so who cares if your array is gently pushed back impreceptibly (small enough so that it won't affect the operation of the emitters). And even if you did care about station keeping, you could do it with a _very_ mild increase in overall mass, even with chemical rockets. Assuming use of a very crude 100sec Isp chemical rockets, adding 2% mass in rocket fuel would provide a counteracting acceleration of one millions of a gee for 2 million seconds (over 20 days, well over the length of the lasing mission). >This thrust must come from somewhere >which was my disagreement with the whole scheme. Unless... As you can see, even if you absolutely had to counteract the one millionth of a gee, it wouldn't take much effort. >We must either: >a) leak approximately half of the beam the other way (probably a little >less, because some thrust will be provided by the emitter's power reception >system (but all such thrust may not be in the proper direction), No, this isn't needed. >b) provide a sufficient supply of reaction mass to thrusters on the emitter >to do the same thing (no way, might as well put them on the spacecraft in >this case), or Actually, a sufficient supply of reaction mass is very easy to do, as I showed. In contrast, if you had put all those reaction rockets on the spacecraft, it would have provided something less than 10km/s of delta-v (the exponential costs of additional delta-v kicking in). >c) build the emitters into a solar sail which is capable of balancing >against BOTH the sun's gravity AND the thrust of the emitter. Not worth the bother. The force of the sun's gravity actually overwhelms the force from the sun's light and emitter. (It does so at any range, because both drop off with 1/r^2.) >> Yes, the laser sail concept can work. It's pretty dizzying how big >> a project it is, though. You have to realize that so far every >> workable scheme to achieve .3+ c has involved exotic technology >> and/or massive engineering feats. Multi-planet sized lenses are >> par for the course. >I also agree that it will work. However, my final conclusion is somewhat >different. I don't think ANY of the concepts so far proposed are really >_workable_. Possible with heroic effort yes, workable, no. I mean "workable" as opposed to "it can't ever work because there's an inherent flaw". An example of an unworkable scheme would be to use chemical rockets to acheive .3+c. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 2 19:09 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2551" "Tue" "2" "December" "1997" "21:09:10" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "56" "Re: starship-design: Beamed Power (was: Perihelion Maneuver)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA28938 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:09:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA28828 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:08:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA09861; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 21:09:11 -0600 Message-Id: <9712030309.AA09861@bit.csc.lsu.edu> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2550 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: starship-design: Beamed Power (was: Perihelion Maneuver) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 21:09:10 -0600 (CST) L. Parker wrote: >There is/was a design for an extremely simple, MECHANICAL laser (trick >optics) that could be easily mass produced. It incorporated it's own >collector as part of the emitter and produced a collimated beam of >incoherent (white) light. This design will not produce a beam collimated enough to focus on a small spot a considerable distance away. The laws of optics won't allow it. The problem is that the Sun is not a point light source (nothing is). The spread on the emitted beam will always be at least the angular size of the Sun at the distance the collector is at (it will have an additional spread due to diffraction limits). For instance, a solar optic mirror/lens mechanism in orbit around Earth will always have a conical spread of .5 degrees or more, no matter how clever it's done. At a distance of 1AU, this means spreading to the size of the Sun. I know what you're thinking--let's put the things further away from the Sun, then! Unfortunately, this gets you nowhere. If you go 10 times further from the Sun, the spread does indeed go down to .05 degrees. This means that for any given distance from the collector/emitter, the spot is 1/100 the size. However, since you're 10 times further from the Sun, you're also collecting 1/100 the amount of sunlight! >Technically, this isn't a laser, but it is darn >close and because of the potential of mass producing them by the millions, >you COULD build an array of them packed shoulder to shoulder 1,000 km >across. Packing these things shoulder to shoulder doesn't really get you anywhere. Because they can't be put in phase with each other, you can't get any benefit from phased array emissions to focus the beam further. >In essence, all it is doing is focusing 1,000 km of solar energy into a >spot out to a considerable distance. True, since it isn't coherent, >intereference will cause the beam to spread faster than a real laser, but >the potential efficiency was limited only by the reflectivity of the >material used to make the collector/emitter. It could go as high as 95 >percent. It vastly increases the acceleration envelope of a solar sail. It >also has some interesting potential for industry. It does have the potential to help out interplanetary solar sails, but simply doesn't have the range needed to be helpful for interstellar travel. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 2 19:10 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2143" "Tue" "2" "December" "1997" "21:11:10" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "54" "Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver (fwd)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA29456 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:10:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA29440 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:10:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA10084; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 21:11:10 -0600 Message-Id: <9712030311.AA10084@bit.csc.lsu.edu> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2142 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver (fwd) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 21:11:10 -0600 (CST) (this e-mail was intended to go to the entire list) kuo wrote: >From kuo Mon Dec 1 23:37:36 1997 >Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver >To: lparker@cacaphony.net (L. Parker) >Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 23:37:36 -0600 (CST) >In-Reply-To: <01BCFE82.AABF5240.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Dec 1, 97 05:41:18 pm >X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] >Content-Type: text >Content-Length: 1499 > >L. Parker wrote: > >>Well, actually I think you are both right. But it isn't just a matter of >>time. It is a matter of economics and above all, politics. Those sorts of >>arguments did not stop the Apollo program, which in hind sight if we had >>waited twenty years, we COULD have done much easier and quicker. > >Actually, if we had waited twenty years, we could at best have gotten >there 10 years slower. > >>I have no problem with unmanned probes at 0.1 c, I have already stated on >>this forum that we need to start sending out unmanned probes at 0.03 c >>right now...so that we will be getting meaningful information back in fifty >>years or so. > >What is 1.5 light years away that we want meaningful information >from? Anyway, I don't see any way we can launch something at .03c >today. Maybe a magsail with hydrogen bomb track in a decade or so, >but that's really really iffy. > >>What I don't believe in is human interstellar travel at those velocities. >>Hardware is cheap, life isn't. Unless we can push the 99% c envelope, we >>aren't going to be able to do it. > >I disagree. If I were offered the chance to fly on a 1 way mission >to the Alpha Centauri systems at .2c (where I'd then spend the rest >of my life), I for one would jump at it. I'm sure there are many >others who'd be just as excited to do so. >-- > _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo > __|_)o(_|__ >/___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... >\=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi > -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 2 19:10 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4323" "Tue" "2" "December" "1997" "21:10:44" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "102" "Re: starship-design: Beamed Power (was: Perihelion Maneuver) (fwd)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA29466 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:10:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA29441 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:10:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA10058; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 21:10:45 -0600 Message-Id: <9712030310.AA10058@bit.csc.lsu.edu> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 4322 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: starship-design: Beamed Power (was: Perihelion Maneuver) (fwd) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 21:10:44 -0600 (CST) (this e-mail was meant to go to the entire list) kuo wrote: >From kuo Mon Dec 1 22:45:17 1997 >Subject: Re: starship-design: Beamed Power (was: Perihelion Maneuver) >To: lparker@cacaphony.net >Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 22:45:17 -0600 (CST) >In-Reply-To: <01BCFE40.8D297E00.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Dec 1, 97 08:13:55 am >X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] >Content-Type: text >Content-Length: 3630 > >L. Parker wrote: >>On Monday, December 01, 1997 7:50 AM, Isaac Kuo >>[SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > >>> It doesn't work as advertised. If you have a bunch of emitters, they >>> are most effective when "shoulder to shoulder". Spreading them apart >>> in an attempt to decrease spot size will _reduce_ the amount of power >>> reaching the target. > >>I don't recall having ever seen anybody claim that the array was as >>powerful or as efficient as a single huge emitter, then again I have never >>seen anyone suggest that we should build a single large emitter either. > >The claim is that with an array of widely spaced emitters, you >would be able to focus the beam over the interplanetary >distances needed to accelerate something to high speed without >a planet-sized lens. > >Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. > >>Just exactly what point are you arguing? That we should build one large >>emitter? Or that we should give up the whole idea just because the >>efficiency of the array is less than a single large emitter? > >I'm arguing that light sail schemes for interplanetary launches >require heroically huge emitters and focussing systems, and that >you don't make the total job easier by breaking it up into >smaller bits. > >In point of fact, I do agree that a number of smaller emitters >will be easier to design and maintain than a single one. However, >the ideal number of emitters would be relatively small, like a >dozen or a hundred or a thousand, and that they should be "shoulder >to shoulder" flush against each other. And unfortunately, the >job of building them is not easier than building a smaller number >of larger emitters. > >>> This actually isn't a concern. The effect of thrust is inversely >>> proportional to mass, and the emitters are VERY HEAVY compared to >>> the thrust they emit in beams. > >>Isaac, this isn't like you, you didn't do the math! > >Well, it means me pinning down some assumed power/weight ratio >for the emitters. Let's say a 1kg sail is being accelerated >at 100 gees. This requires 1kg * 1000m/s^2 * c = 3x10^11 Watts. >This is about the power generation capability of all the U.S. >power plants combined. > >How lightweight can all the U.S. power plants combined be made >in the future? Let's say 100 thousand tons, including the emitter >array and the reactor fuel. > >The reaction against the emitter array would accelerate it >at one millionth of a gee. > >>> The real concern is whether you can build that the huge honking >>> emitter (or emitter array) in the first place. It's dizzyingly >>> massive and big. If you can build it, then it's not going to go >>> anywhere just because of the (relatively) puny beam it emits. > >>Ibid. > >>Isaac, I can rarely fault the technical correctness of your arguments (you >>usually take the time to at least do the math), but you seem to take off on >>minor tangents that really have no bearing on the original topic. NASA, JPL >>and a host of others seem thoroughly convinced that the concept will work. >>All of these people are specialists in this field with published papers and >>the respect of their peers, I see no reason for us (a bunch of amateurs) to >>pursue this argument any further. > >Yes, the laser sail concept can work. It's pretty dizzying how big >a project it is, though. You have to realize that so far every >workable scheme to acheive .3+ c has involved exotic technology >and/or massive engineering feats. Multi-planet sized lenses are >par for the course. >-- > _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo > __|_)o(_|__ >/___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... >\=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi > -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 3 05:13 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["586" "Wed" "3" "December" "1997" "14:12:19" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "18" "starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA06842 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 05:13:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA06830 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 05:13:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA06532; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:12:19 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199712031312.OAA06532@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 585 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:12:19 +0100 (MET) > From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) > > I disagree. If I were offered the chance to fly on a 1 way mission > to the Alpha Centauri systems at .2c (where I'd then spend the rest > of my life), I for one would jump at it. I'm sure there are many > others who'd be just as excited to do so. > Hey, Isaac, I was one of the first on the list, quite a time ago, to be excited to go. Welcome to the Club! -- Zenon PS. WARNING: Kelly is strongly against. He declares it his duty to the mankind to stop us by force, possibly even by shooting us! ;-) - Z From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 3 10:34 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["57" "Wed" "3" "December" "1997" "12:32:55" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "4" "RE: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA08390 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:34:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA08368 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:34:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p39.gnt.com [204.49.68.244]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA28974; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:34:07 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:34:04 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCFFE7.BDAD22E0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 56 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Zenon Kulpa'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:32:55 -0600 I apologize for opening this can of worms again... Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 3 10:36 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2976" "Wed" "3" "December" "1997" "12:28:15" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "74" "RE: starship-design: Beamed Power (was: Perihelion Maneuver)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA09182 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:36:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA09155 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:36:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p39.gnt.com [204.49.68.244]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA28953; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:34:00 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:33:52 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCFFE7.B6BD0360.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Length: 2975 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Beamed Power (was: Perihelion Maneuver) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:28:15 -0600 On Tuesday, December 02, 1997 8:33 PM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > > Kelly thought that an array of widely spaced emitters could > provide the needed focussing without needing any lens. I myself > came up with that idea a while ago, but when I seriously thought > about it I realized it didn't work. > Not unless someone repealed Rayleigh's Criteria... > Well, in the example I gave I was thinking of acceleration over a > period of 2 weeks, not a year. Oh, I was thinking of a longer term. > It's as if you were on roller skates, and you pushed against an > aircraft carrier at dock. Both you and the aircraft carrier > experience the same force, and both you and the aircraft carrier > are pushed back with the same momentum. However, you go flying > back visibly while the effect on the carrier is imperceptible. > > No you don't. First off, thrust is measured in Newtons (kg m/s^2). > In the example I give, the thrust level is 1000 Newtons. The > effect on the 1kg sail is to accelerate it by 100 gees. The > effect on the 100,000 ton emitter array is to accelerate it > by one millionth of a gee. Oops, now I'm confusing thrust and velocity...but the original statement is still valid. It takes an equivalent amount of counteracting _thrust_ to cancel out the change (however miniscule) imparted by the emitter. In a phase locked system, as you yourself pointed out to Kelly, the emitters MUST be stable in relation to each other, so station keeping is essential. (I'm still not confident that it can even be done.) > > And even if you did care about station keeping, you could do > it with a _very_ mild increase in overall mass, even with > chemical rockets. Assuming use of a very crude 100sec Isp > chemical rockets, adding 2% mass in rocket fuel would > provide a counteracting acceleration of one millions of a > gee for 2 million seconds (over 20 days, well over the > length of the lasing mission). It would take thrusters capable of generating 1,000 Newtons... > Not worth the bother. The force of the sun's gravity actually > overwhelms the force from the sun's light and emitter. (It > does so at any range, because both drop off with 1/r^2.) Sorry, but it has already been shown that a light sail can "stand still" with respect to the Sun. In other words it can remain stationary in space or even accelerate directly away from the Sun. I will be happy to furnish references if you don't believe it. > I mean "workable" as opposed to "it can't ever work because there's > an inherent flaw". > > An example of an unworkable scheme would be to use chemical rockets > to acheive .3+c. Yuck! Now that is unworkable. Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- "Science has 'explained' nothing; the more we know the more fantastic the world becomes and the profounder the surrounding darkness." -- Aldous Huxley, 1925 From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 3 20:24 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3591" "Wed" "3" "December" "1997" "22:24:52" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "83" "Re: starship-design: Beamed Power (was: Perihelion Maneuver)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA29796 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 20:24:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA29758 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 20:24:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA10715; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 22:24:53 -0600 Message-Id: <9712040424.AA10715@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <01BCFFE7.B6BD0360.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Dec 3, 97 12:28:15 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3590 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: starship-design: Beamed Power (was: Perihelion Maneuver) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 22:24:52 -0600 (CST) L. Parker wrote: >On Tuesday, December 02, 1997 8:33 PM, >Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: >> In the example I give, the thrust level is 1000 Newtons. The >> effect on the 1kg sail is to accelerate it by 100 gees. The >> effect on the 100,000 ton emitter array is to accelerate it >> by one millionth of a gee. >Oops, now I'm confusing thrust and velocity...but the original statement is >still valid. It takes an equivalent amount of counteracting _thrust_ to >cancel out the change (however miniscule) imparted by the emitter. Yes, but since the emitters is so damn huge and heavy, the additional mass needed to produce this thrust turns out not to be so much (in comparison). >In a phase locked system, as you yourself pointed out to Kelly, >the emitters MUST be stable in relation to each other, so station >keeping is essential. Yes, they need to be stable in relation to each other IN A PHASE LOCKED SYSTEM. No, this does not mean that they need to keep station with their original positions. Since all the emitters are being pushed back by the same (miniscule) amount, they theoretically aren't moved off station with respect to each other. Actually, with microwaves, it's possible to get around the station keeping requirements altogether by not locking the phases. Instead, each emitter has a receiver in the rear, and a carefully adjusted fixed time delay between this receiver and the emitter, which merely amplifies the received signal. In effect, the received signal is pumping a sent signal which has a carefully chosen time delay. Far behind the emitter array is a single emitter which sends the pumping signal. By adjusting the time delays appropriately, the emitted signals are in phase even though the emitters may not be placed precisely. Realistically, this is the only way to get the thing to work even if there weren't any reaction force (just because of assorted vibrations). >> And even if you did care about station keeping, you could do >> it with a _very_ mild increase in overall mass, even with >> chemical rockets. Assuming use of a very crude 100sec Isp >> chemical rockets, adding 2% mass in rocket fuel would >> provide a counteracting acceleration of one millions of a >> gee for 2 million seconds (over 20 days, well over the >> length of the lasing mission). >It would take thrusters capable of generating 1,000 Newtons... Which, assuming an utterly pathetic thrust/weight ratio of 1/10, would require rocket thrusters weighing a total of 1 ton. On a 100,000 ton emitter array, this is barely noticeable. (Thrust/weight ratios of over 300 are not uncommon for chemical rockets.) >> Not worth the bother. The force of the sun's gravity actually >> overwhelms the force from the sun's light and emitter. (It >> does so at any range, because both drop off with 1/r^2.) >Sorry, but it has already been shown that a light sail can "stand still" >with respect to the Sun. In other words it can remain stationary in space >or even accelerate directly away from the Sun. I will be happy to furnish >references if you don't believe it. It's possible with something which is of sufficiently low "density" (mass divided by sail area). I calculate it to be around 17 grams per square meter. However, with anything as "heavy" like a solar collector and a beam emitter included, I don't think such a low areal density would be acheived. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 4 11:07 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4453" "Thu" "4" "December" "1997" "14:07:07" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "121" "Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA28422 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:07:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin85.mail.aol.com (mrin85.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.195]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA28387 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:07:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin85.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id OAA10592; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:07:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971204140706_1673224237@mrin85.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 4452 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:07:07 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 12/1/97 7:35:19 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>In a message dated 11/29/97 5:54:21 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>>KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >>>>Actualy we do currently do VLBI with optical ground telescopes, and NASA is >>>>tinkering with a project to scatter 1 meter drone scopes across an area of >>>>hundreds of miles of lunar surface. > >>>We do LBI with optical ground telescopes. So far as I know, VLBI is >>>impossible with known technology. > >>>The V in VLBI stands for "Very". What that means is that the elements >>>are so far apart that they aren't rigidly locked wrt to each other >>>within the tolerance of about 1/4 the working wavelength. > >>>The moon's surface provides a very stable nearly rigid "structure" >>>to lock a bunch of elements wrt to each other, but this isn't necessary >>>with VLBI. > >>A few sats parked on lunar soil is hardly a structure "rigidly >>locked to each other within the tolerance of about 1/4 the >>working wavelength." > >Yes it is, actually. It's nearly perfect--and among the best we >can hope for in the Solar System. Fixed within a 1/4 wavelength of light? Thermal warpage due to day night cycle and tidal effects would prevent that. >Unlike Earth, it has extremely little seismic activity, and unlike >most larger bodies in the Solar System, it has no atmosphere. > >That makes it a big hunk of rock which doesn't vibrate much. You >can stick things on it and be sure they're not moving with respect >to each other. > >>Also we do synthetic appiture imaging over 100's of yards or even kilometers >>of fighters and space craft. So if you prefer we could consider that as an >>example of VLBI using one insterment over a period of time. > >>>>>Cars are a bit better, but not outrageously better, than several >>>>>decades ago. > >>>>Cars speeds are governed by highway speed limits. > >>>Not on the racetrack. > >>Especial on race tracks. > >Huh? What? You're saying that car speeds are governed by highway >speed limits on race tracks? No race car speeds are governed b y race track rules and speed limits on race tracks. (My father used to race stock cars for STP.) >>>>Unrestricted the max speed >>>>for a car a hundred years ago was tens of miles per hour, just recently >>>>supersonics (700+) were runing. > >>>Not on the racetrack. > >>So? .. actually it was on a race track. > >"The racetrack" refers to racing tracks on which races like Indy and >Monaco are run. Different track, but still officially a track. >>>Admittedly there was a vast improvement in automotive technology >>>between 100 and 50 years ago. However, since then improvement >>>has largely leveled off. > >>You really need to read more. Auto tech has imptoved dramitically in >>performance, effocency and cleanlyness. Sports cars now produce more >>horsepower with engines that were tiny by 1960's standards, while producing >>about 1/40th the polution, and with better relyability then any car of the >>60's. > >The size of the engines are smaller, but not much lighter. > >>>Well, since you seem unconvinced by what I deemed a blatant example, >>>I'll give another--small arms. Today's military small arms don't >>>significantly outperform those from 40 or 50 years ago except in >>>improved reliability. > >>Theres no reason to since the military personel of today can't point >>significantly more acurately then those of 40-50 years ago. > >Actually, there is every reason to increase the performance of small >arms in terms of reducing ammo size/weight, which has a dramatic >impact on logistics. (It also allows carrying more ammunition and >weight). Also, if ammunition size/weight can be dramatically reduced, >it allows firing much larger bursts, which _does_ increase hit >probability. > >However, the physics of aerodynamics and chemistry of explosives has >prevented us from making any dramatic advances in small arms. >Logistics concerns _have_ prompted reducing ammo size/weight, but >at the expense of performance. In performance I was reffering to accuracy and range. The size of the bullet is based on logistics and weight trad offs, and the blast power by the tolerances of the solder. Lethality is not maximized in military bullets due to traty and tactical considerations (which is why cops and home owners use more leathal bullets). But none of this related to the starship design!! > _____ Isaac Kuo Kelly Starks From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 4 11:07 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2203" "Thu" "4" "December" "1997" "14:07:00" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "66" "starship-design: Re: Beamed Power (was: Perihelion Maneuver)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA28425 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:07:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin83.mail.aol.com (mrin83.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.193]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA28389 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:07:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin83.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id OAA01992; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:07:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971204140700_1848184109@mrin83.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2202 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Beamed Power (was: Perihelion Maneuver) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:07:00 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 12/1/97 10:04:58 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >On Monday, December 01, 1997 2:03 AM, KellySt@aol.com >[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: >> >> True, but since they can stay at home where normal ships can get at them >> and >> refuel them thats not as big a concern. Also the power sats don't have >to >> be >> light and easy to move. > >Umm, not only do you have to fuel the power sats but you have to fuel the >transports too... The power sats are solar powered. >> The emiters don't really bother me. They are basically just big O'Neil >> style >> power sats, and their thrust might be easy to ofset by the solar sail >> effect >> from their solar collectors. Keeping the beam cleanly focused into a >> beam >> that the sail can get into and get balenced thrust from over widly varing >> distences without refocusing is a bigger challege, and we'll probably >need >> to >> waste the vast bulk of the power outside of the central sweet spot the >> sail >> needs to stay in (and that sweet spot will need to be far larger then the >> sail) so its efficency will be terrible. But unless we come up with some >> much better physics trics it seem about as good as we'll be able to >> manage. > >BTW, it is totally unnecessary for the sats to be in phase if you are using >a laser sail concept. You are simply delivering a concentrated replacement >for sunlight, it doesn't even have to be monochromatic. I'm not familiar >enough with your microwave concept to know if you NEED coherent microwave >energy at the the receiving end. I think for a maser sail the beam would need to be coherent, but I'm not sure. >> At least the fuel/sail system itself seems prety solid and relyable. No >> cryo >> tanks or unstable fuels. Pretty simple brute force tech. > > >Lee > (o o) >------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo----- >---- >PLEASE NOTE: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That When the Consumer >Is >Not Directly Observing This Product, It May Cease to Exist or Will Exist >Only >in a Vague and Undetermined State. I love the sig! Appropriate for the holidays. ;) Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 4 11:07 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2344" "Thu" "4" "December" "1997" "14:07:10" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "58" "Re: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA28452 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:07:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin86.mail.aol.com (mrin86.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.196]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA28427 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:07:39 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin86.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id OAA20629; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:07:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971204140709_2096145325@mrin86.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2343 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:07:10 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 12/1/97 7:50:01 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>>what I am not comfortable with is station keeping, ALL of >>>the components of the system will experience thrust as a direct result of >>>the power being transmitted. The laws of physics can't be thwarted, it will >>>still require as much or more reaction mass as any other concept (probably >>>more) the only difference is that it isn't necessary for the fuel to be >>>aboard the vehicle. > >This actually isn't a concern. The effect of thrust is inversely >proportional to mass, and the emitters are VERY HEAVY compared to >the thrust they emit in beams. > >This should be intuitively obvious. If you had a laser emitter which >could impart decent thrust on itself, you could use _that_ as a photon >rocket. (Then you wouldn't even have to worry about focussing the >beams and you could use it for deceleration also.) > >The real concern is whether you can build that the huge honking >emitter (or emitter array) in the first place. It's dizzyingly >massive and big. If you can build it, then it's not going to go >anywhere just because of the (relatively) puny beam it emits. Agreed, thou after a year or so it could throw them around in their orbits. >>At least the fuel/sail system itself seems prety solid and relyable. No cryo >>tanks or unstable fuels. Pretty simple brute force tech. > >You can say Forwards pure sail system is also "simple brute force tech". >Actually, it requires much less technology than this "fuel/sail" idea. >It doesn't require exotic fusion technology. However the drop sial/reflector had serious problems and would probably not be able to function, much less acuratly target and decelerate the ship. Which is why we droped it from consideration a couple years ago. >However, the sheer size of that "brute force" is inconceivably massive. So was the Sat-V concept at the time. But I agree the scale and its implied cost are critical problems. >Especially when you consider that a modified design would only require >a fraction of a percent of the effort. But as I listed before, and went over with numbers, your modified design wouldn't save a dramatic amount of power (possibly none), but would add a serious intercept problem (scatering your hundreds of fuel packages over about a light year and a half). Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 4 11:07 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6439" "Thu" "4" "December" "1997" "14:07:16" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "143" "Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA28519 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:07:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin47.mail.aol.com (mrin47.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.157]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA28503 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:07:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin47.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id OAA11644; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:07:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971204140714_666964397@mrin47> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 6438 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:07:16 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 12/1/97 10:05:27 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >On Monday, December 01, 1997 7:35 AM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] >wrote: >> >> Huh? What? You're saying that car speeds are governed by highway >> speed limits on race tracks? > >IMSA and NASCAR have required governors on race vehicles for years... > >> The size of the engines are smaller, but not much lighter. > >Hmm, you should try to lift the four cylinder engine in my old Willy's >wagon. > >> >Theres no reason to since the military personel of today can't point >> >significantly more acurately then those of 40-50 years ago. >> >> Actually, there is every reason to increase the performance of small >> arms in terms of reducing ammo size/weight, which has a dramatic >> impact on logistics. (It also allows carrying more ammunition and >> weight). Also, if ammunition size/weight can be dramatically reduced, >> it allows firing much larger bursts, which _does_ increase hit >> probability. > >Actually, when the US Army went looking for a new weapon to replace their >WWII vintage rifles their was quite a bit of heated debate. It seems that >of all the ammunition expended in WWII only one round in a million actually >hit someone. One faction wanted to purchase a more accurate semi-automatic >weapon and force the troops to learn to AIM them. The army finaly realized they could put a chep camera on the gun and a display in the helmat and let the solders fire the gun at arms length while behind cover. Also such a scoped, computer corrected sight would be easier to aim. Er.. assuming you know where they are and don't just want to fire in the direction to keep their heads down. >The other faction claimed that the lives of our soldiers were more >important than hitting a target and that this would be best achieved with a >fully automatic weapon that would at least (hopefully) force the enemy to >keep their heads down whether we hit anything or not. As you can see, the >M14 lost and the M16 won. Guess which weapon is preferred by special forces >snipers and civilian competition shooters? Actually M16s are popular among competition shooters, and snippers have newer toys. As an aside. Why did they arm trops in a jungle fight with long barel, light bullet, machine guns? Its not lkike they could ever see anything fartherr then 6 feet from them. >I think the prevalence of alternative arms (mostly illegal)in Vietnam may >have finally changed the minds of the powers that be. Evidence the Squad >Automatic Weapon competition. The Army has since decided that only a few >troops actually need fully automatic weapons and has changed their >strategy. Meanwhile, we are stuck with all of those M16s.. I just read that the next gun will still be a selectable full/semi-auto rifle firing the M-16s bullets. >> However, the physics of aerodynamics and chemistry of explosives has >> prevented us from making any dramatic advances in small arms. >> Logistics concerns _have_ prompted reducing ammo size/weight, but >> at the expense of performance. > >There have in fact been a plethora of advancements in both weapon and >ammunition size, weight, and performance. These in turn have necessitated >improvements in armor and tactics as well. Even so, modern body armor is no >match for the weapons that are now freely available on the market - weapons >that have been developed in the last few years. Just ask your local >policeman. And past that the bullets big game hunters use make those look like cap guns! >************************************************************ >Now to try and put this back on topic... THANK YOU!!! >Scientific and technological advancements tend to run in cycles, short >spurts followed by a period of consolidation and incremental improvement. >Most theorist think that we are nearing the end of a slow period and should >begin seeing new breakthroughs in the next twenty years. If for no other >reason than the sheer amount of new information that we are acquiring. > >Looking back at the past fifty years, only a few of the advancements we >have made were even dreamed of, most were simply so far beyond the bounds >of what was then known as to be inconceivable. I remember when the laser >was invented. There were all sorts of predictions of the things it would do >for us, a lot of which never happened. There have been many other things it >has done though, things that we never even dreamed of then, simply because >there were too many layers of technology missing. > >Today's innocuous idea may become tomorrow's wonder invention, there simply >isn't any way to tell in advance. The only thing that is certain is that >things will have changed enormously fifty years from now, and other than >perhaps the broadest of outlines, we cannot really predict what will >happen. > >Lee Agreed. Best we can do is pick likely or unlikely advances, and keep to systems that seem to have a good mix of simplicity and performance. For example: If we wait for physics to come up with major changes (zero-point energy, inertia damping, gravity control, etc..) we could get fantasic increases in performance, speed, etc. But we haven't a clue what might be discovered and perfected in the next 50 years. Anti-matter ships have great performance, and use known physics, but carrying hundreds of tons of the stuff for decades is a major problem (and danger to nearby solar systems!), the engine designs have serious problems compared to fusion, and the manufacturing expence for the fuel would seem to dwarf the other ideas. But if we could cut the cost down, or create antimatter on demand with a light low power systems (might be possible with some theorized physics tricks) it would be great. Bussards laser sail idea is light and efficent, but the drop sail idea requires you to keep hundreds (or thousands?) of square miles of unanchored foil precisely shaped into an optically precise form focused on a high speed moving and manuvering target, that it can't see. Fuel/sail avoids a 160,000 to 1 fuel ratio of a pure fusion rocket, and uses cheap and plentifull fuel. But it requers a massive array of solar powered microwave sats in our solar system. All in all we are down to designs that seems extreamly expensive, but possible. Or ones the requre unknown physics or technology. Beter designs or tech could be usefull at this point. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 4 11:21 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3295" "Thu" "4" "December" "1997" "13:21:59" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "84" "Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA07532 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:21:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA07470 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:21:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA18278; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:21:59 -0600 Message-Id: <9712041921.AA18278@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <971204140706_1673224237@mrin85.mail.aol.com> from "KellySt@aol.com" at Dec 4, 97 02:07:07 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3294 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:21:59 -0600 (CST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 12/1/97 7:35:19 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>>In a message dated 11/29/97 5:54:21 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>>>KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>>>The V in VLBI stands for "Very". What that means is that the elements >>>>are so far apart that they aren't rigidly locked wrt to each other >>>>within the tolerance of about 1/4 the working wavelength. >>>>The moon's surface provides a very stable nearly rigid "structure" >>>>to lock a bunch of elements wrt to each other, but this isn't necessary >>>>with VLBI. >>>A few sats parked on lunar soil is hardly a structure "rigidly >>>locked to each other within the tolerance of about 1/4 the >>>working wavelength." >>Yes it is, actually. It's nearly perfect--and among the best we >>can hope for in the Solar System. >Fixed within a 1/4 wavelength of light? Thermal warpage due to day night >cycle and tidal effects would prevent that. No it wouldn't. That just means you need micrometer-like servos to provide fine adjustment to the position. Which realistically you need anyway. Thermal warpage and tidal effects are very slow and steady, which means they can be accounted for with slow and steady adjustments. Equally important is that they have a limited range of effect, which means the worm gears used don't need to be overly long. >>>>Well, since you seem unconvinced by what I deemed a blatant example, >>>>I'll give another--small arms. Today's military small arms don't >>>>significantly outperform those from 40 or 50 years ago except in >>>>improved reliability. >>>Theres no reason to since the military personel of today can't point >>>significantly more acurately then those of 40-50 years ago. >>Actually, there is every reason to increase the performance of small >>arms in terms of reducing ammo size/weight, which has a dramatic >>impact on logistics. (It also allows carrying more ammunition and >>weight). Also, if ammunition size/weight can be dramatically reduced, >>it allows firing much larger bursts, which _does_ increase hit >>probability. >>However, the physics of aerodynamics and chemistry of explosives has >>prevented us from making any dramatic advances in small arms. >>Logistics concerns _have_ prompted reducing ammo size/weight, but >>at the expense of performance. >In performance I was reffering to accuracy and range. These are only two aspects of performance in small arms. Much like number of seats and height are just two aspects of cars. >The size of the bullet >is based on logistics and weight trad offs, and the blast power by the >tolerances of the solder. If we increased performance by having rounds 1% of the current typical size which were equally effective, the advantages would be enormous. We haven't. >But none of this related to the starship design!! You suggested that a few decades was always sufficient to vastly improve technological capabilities. This simply isn't always the case, and I was merely trying to demonstrate counterexamples. If you were paying any attention, you'd have remembered. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 4 11:29 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2041" "Thu" "4" "December" "1997" "13:29:59" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "50" "Re: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA13071 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:29:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA13034 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:29:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA18862; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:30:00 -0600 Message-Id: <9712041930.AA18862@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <971204140709_2096145325@mrin86.mail.aol.com> from "KellySt@aol.com" at Dec 4, 97 02:07:10 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2040 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:29:59 -0600 (CST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 12/1/97 7:50:01 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>You can say Forwards pure sail system is also "simple brute force tech". >>Actually, it requires much less technology than this "fuel/sail" idea. >>It doesn't require exotic fusion technology. >However the drop sial/reflector had serious problems and would probably not >be able to function, much less acuratly target and decelerate the ship. > Which is why we droped it from consideration a couple years ago. The technical problems with Forward's pure sail system are dwarfed by the technical challenge of building the astronomical beam emitter system in the first place. Consider that even his proposed 1000km lens for the smallest of his Starwisp proposals is already ludicrously beyond anything we can seriously think of building in the foreseeable future. >>However, the sheer size of that "brute force" is inconceivably massive. >So was the Sat-V concept at the time. But I agree the scale and its implied >cost are critical problems. No it wasn't. It's only a couple orders of magnitude larger than its predecessors. The manned sail system is more like a dozen orders of magnitude beyond what we've ever done in critical areas. >>Especially when you consider that a modified design would only require >>a fraction of a percent of the effort. >But as I listed before, and went over with numbers, your modified design >wouldn't save a dramatic amount of power (possibly none), but would add a >serious intercept problem (scatering your hundreds of fuel packages over >about a light year and a half). You did not. You didn't even read my modified design (much less understood it). As I stated it, the power requirement was reduced by two orders of magnitude. If you want to dispute it, then at least read the details to my modified design. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 4 11:42 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1661" "Thu" "4" "December" "1997" "14:42:02" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "48" "starship-design: Fwd: NASA Looks Toward Visionary Interstellar Travel" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA21155 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:42:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin39.mx.aol.com (mrin39.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.149]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA21048 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:42:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin39.mx.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id OAA14912 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:42:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971204144201_1874429169@mrin39.mx> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1660 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Fwd: NASA Looks Toward Visionary Interstellar Travel Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:42:02 -0500 (EST) --------------------- Forwarded message: From: NASANews@hq.nasa.gov Sender: owner-press-release@lists.hq.nasa.gov Date: 97-12-03 19:04:12 EST David M. DeFelice Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH Dec. 2, 1997 (Phone: 216/433-6186) RELEASE I97-11 NASA LOOKS TOWARD VISIONARY INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL Many people wonder when we will be able to travel to distant solar systems as easily as envisioned in science fiction. Discover NASA's perspective on the prospects that exist today for achieving such far-future visions via a new World Wide Web site called, "Warp Drive, When?" Explore the site at: http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm This web site explains the challenges of interstellar travel, the prospects and limitations of existing propulsion ideas, and the prospects emerging from science that may one day provide the breakthroughs needed to enable practical interstellar voyages. Analogies to familiar science fiction are used to simplify concepts such as "warp drive." For a look at what NASA is doing to achieve such breakthroughs, another web site is available about the new NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program: http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/ This modest program is taking a step-by-step approach toward discovering the ultimate breakthroughs needed to revolutionize space travel and enable human journeys to other star systems - credible progress toward incredible possibilities. This program represents the combined efforts of individuals from various NASA centers, other government labs, universities and industry. - end - From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 4 11:43 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1377" "Thu" "4" "December" "1997" "14:42:04" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "40" "Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA21387 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:43:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin52.mail.aol.com (mrin52.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.162]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA21363 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:43:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin52.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id OAA20341; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:42:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971204144204_-554193039@mrin52.mail.aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1376 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:42:04 -0500 (EST) In a message dated 12/3/97 7:23:07 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) >> >> I disagree. If I were offered the chance to fly on a 1 way mission >> to the Alpha Centauri systems at .2c (where I'd then spend the rest >> of my life), I for one would jump at it. I'm sure there are many >> others who'd be just as excited to do so. >> >Hey, Isaac, I was one of the first on the list, quite a time ago, >to be excited to go. > >Welcome to the Club! > >-- Zenon > >PS. WARNING: Kelly is strongly against. > He declares it his duty to the mankind to stop us by force, > possibly even by shooting us! ;-) - Z Nah, I just feel that to preserve any chance of geting the program approved I'ld need to shoot anyone who'ld suggest it. ;) As an asside it would be far cheaper to do a two way mission then a quicker one way mission, since you'ld to launch a couple orders of magnitude less stuff to build a sustainable colony.... Opps forget, you were happy with a one way suicide mission. (I.E. no return, no sustainable colony/life support, and the folks back home get to bet on the ship or crew dieing first on internation TV.) I can't imagine why I thought it would never be aproved. ;) OH, did you know that Idea was poroposed for Mars exploration at the 'Case for Mars' conference last year? Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 4 11:54 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3729" "Thu" "4" "December" "1997" "13:54:31" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "86" "Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA28667 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:54:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA28630 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:54:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA21143; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:54:32 -0600 Message-Id: <9712041954.AA21143@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <971204140714_666964397@mrin47> from "KellySt@aol.com" at Dec 4, 97 02:07:16 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3728 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:54:31 -0600 (CST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >Agreed. Best we can do is pick likely or unlikely advances, and keep to >systems that seem to have a good mix of simplicity and performance. I would argue we pick only _very_ likely advances. Either that or admit that there's no particular reason to think the design will _ever_ work. For instance, any design which requires fusion power other than from H-bombs is speculation. >For example: >If we wait for physics to come up with major changes (zero-point energy, >inertia damping, gravity control, etc..) we could get fantasic increases in >performance, speed, etc. But we haven't a clue what might be discovered and >perfected in the next 50 years. I seriously doubt any of these will be a factor, ever. I'm in the majority camp which figures that the density of zero point energy is uselessly small. Something _might_ be discovered in the next millenia which will lead to fantastic increases in space propulsion beyond the theoretical anti-matter rocket. If so, I'll bet it won't look anything like anything we've imagined. >Anti-matter ships have great performance, and use known physics, but carrying >hundreds of tons of the stuff for decades is a major problem (and danger to >nearby solar systems!), the engine designs have serious problems compared to >fusion, and the manufacturing expence for the fuel would seem to dwarf the >other ideas. Don't forget that anything using fusion power other than H-bombs is speculation. An antimatter rocket, unlike a (non-H-bomb based) fusion rocket, could conceivably by designed and flown using current technology. It would be fantastically expensive, and perform worse than a bottlerocket, but it could conceivably be done. >But if we could cut the cost down, or create antimatter on >demand with a light low power systems (might be possible with some theorized >physics tricks) it would be great. >Bussards laser sail idea is light and efficent, but the drop sail idea >requires you to keep hundreds (or thousands?) of square miles of unanchored >foil precisely shaped into an optically precise form focused on a high speed >moving and manuvering target, that it can't see. It's not light or efficient. But it could theoretically work. >Fuel/sail avoids a 160,000 to 1 fuel ratio of a pure fusion rocket, and uses >cheap and plentifull fuel. But it requers a massive array of solar powered >microwave sats in our solar system. You were looking to avoid a mere 160,000-1 fuel ratio? In favor of a 400-1 fuel ratio? Just how lightweight did you think the microwave satellites were going to be? Show me numbers. Power-weight ratios. Desired output thrust. I'll bet that given any reasonable numbers, you'll find that the mass of the microwave emitter satellites will end up weighing more than 400 times the sailship. For every kilogram of sailship, you need 1,500,000,000 watts to push 1 gee. Assuming your emitter satellites were 500 times the mass of the sailship, that means they have a power/weight ratio of at least 3,000,000 watts/kg (this includes the collectors, emitters, and lenses)! If you can't even do that, then you're massive array of satellites is going to weigh more than the huge amount of fuel you're trying to avoid using. And I'll bet you that fuel costs less per kg than microwave beam satellite. >All in all we are down to designs that seems extreamly expensive, but >possible. Or ones the requre unknown physics or technology. Positive feedback fusion technology, other than H-bombs, is unknown technology. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 4 12:06 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1776" "Thu" "4" "December" "1997" "14:06:34" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "42" "Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA06745 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:06:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA06619 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:06:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA22042; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:06:34 -0600 Message-Id: <9712042006.AA22042@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <971204144204_-554193039@mrin52.mail.aol.com> from "KellySt@aol.com" at Dec 4, 97 02:42:04 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1775 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:06:34 -0600 (CST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 12/3/97 7:23:07 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >>> From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) >>> I disagree. If I were offered the chance to fly on a 1 way mission >>> to the Alpha Centauri systems at .2c (where I'd then spend the rest >>> of my life), I for one would jump at it. I'm sure there are many >>> others who'd be just as excited to do so. >>Hey, Isaac, I was one of the first on the list, quite a time ago, >>to be excited to go. >As an asside it would be far cheaper to do a two way mission then a quicker >one way mission, since you'ld to launch a couple orders of magnitude less >stuff to build a sustainable colony.... >Opps forget, you were happy with a one way suicide mission. (I.E. no return, >no sustainable colony/life support, and the folks back home get to bet on the >ship or crew dieing first on internation TV.) It's not a suicide mission. Suicide is purposefully dying prematurely. With a couple hundred years of life support supplies, there's no inherent reason why the crew would die prematurely. As for 2-way vs. 1-way, I gave as an example a .2c cruise speed. A 2-way mission at .1c would take at least 80 years to get there and back! With current human lifespans, that sounds to me a hell of a lot worse than going one way in 20 years and then spending the next half century or so basking in the warmth of alien suns. >I can't imagine why I thought it would never be aproved. ;) >OH, did you know that Idea was poroposed for Mars exploration at the 'Case >for Mars' conference last year? No. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 4 13:04 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1585" "Thu" "4" "December" "1997" "21:36:17" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "44" "Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA14907 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:04:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA14481 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:04:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id VAA08506; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 21:36:17 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199712042036.VAA08506@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1584 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 21:36:17 +0100 (MET) > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 12/3/97 7:23:07 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: > > >> From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) > >> > >> I disagree. If I were offered the chance to fly on a 1 way mission > >> to the Alpha Centauri systems at .2c (where I'd then spend the rest > >> of my life), I for one would jump at it. I'm sure there are many > >> others who'd be just as excited to do so. > >> > >Hey, Isaac, I was one of the first on the list, quite a time ago, > >to be excited to go. > > > >Welcome to the Club! > > > >-- Zenon > > > >PS. WARNING: Kelly is strongly against. > > He declares it his duty to the mankind to stop us by force, > > possibly even by shooting us! ;-) - Z > > > Nah, I just feel that to preserve any chance of geting the program approved > I'ld need to shoot anyone who'ld suggest it. ;) > > As an asside it would be far cheaper to do a two way mission then a quicker > one way mission, since you'ld to launch a couple orders of magnitude less > stuff to build a sustainable colony.... > > Opps forget, you were happy with a one way suicide mission. (I.E. no return, > no sustainable colony/life support, and the folks back home get to bet on the > ship or crew dieing first on internation TV.) > Wrong. I never was happy with THAT. I was happy with a one-way non-suicide mission. That is, no return, colony/life support sustainable till natural death (say, 200 year supplies should suffice, huh?). An what the folks are doing back home... who cares? My home will be over there... -- Zenon From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 4 14:22 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["642" "Thu" "4" "December" "1997" "15:29:04" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "22" "RE: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA06355 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:22:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA06326 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:22:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p14.gnt.com [204.49.68.219]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA04061; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 16:22:29 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 16:22:27 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD00D0.CFC47C00.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 641 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'KellySt@aol.com'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:29:04 -0600 On Thursday, December 04, 1997 1:07 PM, KellySt@aol.com [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: > All in all we are down to designs that seems extreamly expensive, but > possible. Or ones the requre unknown physics or technology. > > Beter designs or tech could be usefull at this point. Pretty much what I said... Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution." -- Albert Einstein From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 4 14:23 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["571" "Thu" "4" "December" "1997" "16:18:56" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "18" "RE: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA06423 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:23:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA06339 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:22:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p14.gnt.com [204.49.68.219]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA04083; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 16:22:40 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 16:22:38 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD00D0.D660AF20.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 570 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 16:18:56 -0600 On Thursday, December 04, 1997 1:55 PM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > I would argue we pick only _very_ likely advances. Either that or > admit that there's no particular reason to think the design will > _ever_ work. If we had always funded research that way, we wouldn't even have fission... Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- When I die, I want to go peacefully, in my sleep, like my grandfather... not screaming like the people in his car. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 4 14:23 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1734" "Thu" "4" "December" "1997" "16:12:09" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "48" "RE: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA06469 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:23:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA06395 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:22:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p14.gnt.com [204.49.68.219]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA04073; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 16:22:36 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 16:22:33 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD00D0.D30A3120.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1733 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 16:12:09 -0600 On Thursday, December 04, 1997 1:30 PM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > >So was the Sat-V concept at the time. But I agree the scale and its > >implied > >cost are critical problems. > > No it wasn't. It's only a couple orders of magnitude larger than its > predecessors. > > The manned sail system is more like a dozen orders of magnitude beyond > what we've ever done in critical areas. > If I understand your argument correctly you are saying: 1) Saturn V technology was merely scaled up V-2 technology, quantitatively different as oppossed to qualitatively different, and that the orders of magnitude in this instance are different generations of the same technology, and 2) Manned sail systems are a dozen orders of magnitude (qualitatively?) different. I am assuming that you were starting with the V-2, that is the only way your statement makes _any_ sense. This argument takes a fledgling technology, unmanned V-2 rockets and moves to manned Saturn V's in one o rder of magnitude. Using the SAME reasoning, we have already flown a first generation unmanned solar sail, so it is only ONE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE to a manned design. Maybe you want to use a different analogy? Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- HOW TO COOK AN EGG -- Physics Edition "If you tie one of these eggs to the end of a string and whirl it round rapidly, and suddenly stop, the movement may perhaps be converted into heat, and then . . ." "And then the egg will be cooked?" "Yes, if the rotation has been swift enough. But how do you get the stoppage without breaking the egg?" -- Jules Verne, The School for Crusoes From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 4 15:42 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1970" "Thu" "4" "December" "1997" "17:42:25" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "48" "Re: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA27202 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:42:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA27159 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:41:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA13413; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 17:42:26 -0600 Message-Id: <9712042342.AA13413@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <01BD00D0.D30A3120.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Dec 4, 97 04:12:09 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1969 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 17:42:25 -0600 (CST) L. Parker wrote: >On Thursday, December 04, 1997 1:30 PM, Isaac Kuo >[SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: >> >So was the Sat-V concept at the time. But I agree the scale and its >> >implied cost are critical problems. >> No it wasn't. It's only a couple orders of magnitude larger than its >> predecessors. >> The manned sail system is more like a dozen orders of magnitude beyond >> what we've ever done in critical areas. [...] >I am assuming that you were starting with the V-2, that is the only way >your statement makes _any_ sense. Yes, that was Von Braun's earlier work. >This argument takes a fledgling >technology, unmanned V-2 rockets and moves to manned Saturn V's in one o >rder of magnitude. Using the SAME reasoning, we have already flown a first >generation unmanned solar sail, so it is only ONE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE to a >manned design. Maybe you want to use a different analogy? Umm...it's only an order of magnitude from a manned design, yes. That means it's not inconceivable to have manned solar sail designs in the next decades. I'd perfectly expect it if we put our minds to it. However, it's _not_ only an order of magnitude from an interstellar laser sail design. The unmanned solar sail can deal with microgee forces from sunlight. For interstellar travel, at _least_ 1 gee should be designed for. Also, the laser sail needs to be big. Even in the puniest of sail proposals, it's 1km big--far bigger than any nonrigid moving vehicle we've ever built. Second, the laser sail isn't even the toughest part. The toughest part is the lens. Even in the puniest of interstellar proposals, it's 1000km in diameter. There are plenty of individual aspects which are many orders of magnitude from what we can deal with with today's technology. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 4 15:43 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["732" "Thu" "4" "December" "1997" "17:43:38" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "21" "Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA27772 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:43:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA27714 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:43:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA13476; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 17:43:38 -0600 Message-Id: <9712042343.AA13476@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <01BD00D0.D660AF20.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Dec 4, 97 04:18:56 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 731 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 17:43:38 -0600 (CST) L. Parker wrote: >On Thursday, December 04, 1997 1:55 PM, Isaac Kuo >[SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: >> I would argue we pick only _very_ likely advances. Either that or >> admit that there's no particular reason to think the design will >> _ever_ work. >If we had always funded research that way, we wouldn't even have fission... We're not talking about funding research, we're talking about trying to design a reasonable interstellar mission. You don't count on unknown basic sciences advances when planning out a project like that. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Dec 5 06:42 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1963" "Fri" "5" "December" "1997" "08:39:04" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "44" "starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA11859 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 06:42:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA11853 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 06:42:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p21.gnt.com [204.49.68.226]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA16302; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:41:48 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:41:39 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD0159.9AF1D8E0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1962 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:39:04 -0600 On Thursday, December 04, 1997 5:42 PM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > Umm...it's only an order of magnitude from a manned design, yes. That > means it's not inconceivable to have manned solar sail designs in the > next decades. I'd perfectly expect it if we put our minds to it. > > However, it's _not_ only an order of magnitude from an interstellar > laser sail design. The unmanned solar sail can deal with microgee > forces from sunlight. For interstellar travel, at _least_ 1 gee > should be designed for. Also, the laser sail needs to be big. Even > in the puniest of sail proposals, it's 1km big--far bigger than any > nonrigid moving vehicle we've ever built. > > Second, the laser sail isn't even the toughest part. The toughest > part is the lens. Even in the puniest of interstellar proposals, > it's 1000km in diameter. > > There are plenty of individual aspects which are many orders of > magnitude from what we can deal with with today's technology. That's better. Your analogy was confusing. I would agree, that the combination of several technologies, some of which HAVEN'T been invented yet would push it to at least three or four orders of magnitude. In addition, the fact that some of these technologies are not yet around would indicate a "qualitative" difference which would have to count for more than just one order of magnitude. I would venture that ANY concept we currently have going is more than a few orders of magnitude from being interstellar capable. As you said in an earlier post (regarding solar sails in particular), they are capable on intersystem use only. Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- PLEASE NOTE: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That When the Consumer Is Not Directly Observing This Product, It May Cease to Exist or Will Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Dec 5 18:43 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1774" "Fri" "5" "December" "1997" "21:12:09" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "45" "Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA13072 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 18:43:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo15.mail.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.170]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA13058 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 18:43:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <61c12b30.3488b480@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1773 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 21:12:09 EST In a message dated 12/4/97 1:22:14 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>The size of the bullet >>is based on logistics and weight trad offs, and the blast power by the >>tolerances of the solder. > >If we increased performance by having rounds 1% of the >current typical size which were equally effective, the advantages >would be enormous. > >We haven't. Agreed, but then the physics of momentum would kinda forbid that. I.E. 1% the current round size with the same range impact energy would probably require hypersonic flechettes. They decelerate too fast and slam the hell out of you arm. >>But none of this related to the starship design!! > >You suggested that a few decades was always sufficient to vastly >improve technological capabilities. > >This simply isn't always the case, and I was merely trying to >demonstrate counterexamples. > >If you were paying any attention, you'd have remembered. I do remember. To be precise I was suggesting it was likly we could dramatically increase the speed of a probe after 20 years. Given that base probe was suggested by you to be a .1c sail probe, with a roughly 44 year flight time. Doubling the speed would meerly require doubling the emmitter systems, increase the sail thrust to weight ratio, cut the probes dry weight, etc.. In general these would be pretty easy to do over 20 years. In general double the speed of systems after 20 years hasn't been difficult in the past when attempted (one of the reasons race cars and planes have speed limiting rules). Going from this off into arguments over the relative performane of army guns and street cars is kinda off topic, since the reason for ther speed capacities isn't generally limited by technology. Certainly no tech related to interstellar probes. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Dec 6 02:05 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5228" "Sat" "6" "December" "1997" "01:10:01" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "126" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA14982 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 02:05:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo19 (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.176]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA14973 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 02:05:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <866cd095.3488ec3b@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 5227 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 01:10:01 EST In a message dated 12/5/97 3:44:11 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >>Agreed. Best we can do is pick likely or unlikely advances, and keep to >>systems that seem to have a good mix of simplicity and performance. > >I would argue we pick only _very_ likely advances. Either that or >admit that there's no particular reason to think the design will >_ever_ work. > >For instance, any design which requires fusion power other than from >H-bombs is speculation. Actually we do have working fusion systems. Some need more efficent systems like lasers and such. Others aren't commercially usable to produce electricity. But we do have them. Beyond that plannig on such systems in the next 50 years is highly conservative even by the standrads of commercial investors. >>For example: > >>If we wait for physics to come up with major changes (zero-point energy, >>inertia damping, gravity control, etc..) we could get fantasic increases in >>performance, speed, etc. But we haven't a clue what might be discovered and >>perfected in the next 50 years. > >I seriously doubt any of these will be a factor, ever. I'm in the >majority camp which figures that the density of zero point energy >is uselessly small. > >Something _might_ be discovered in the next millenia which will lead >to fantastic increases in space propulsion beyond the theoretical >anti-matter rocket. If so, I'll bet it won't look anything like >anything we've imagined. We only figured out mass conversion and fission theories in the last hundred years. Expecting we woun't find a few such stagering things in the next hundred is really better against the odds and history. >>Anti-matter ships have great performance, and use known physics, but carrying >>hundreds of tons of the stuff for decades is a major problem (and danger to >>nearby solar systems!), the engine designs have serious problems compared to >>fusion, and the manufacturing expence for the fuel would seem to dwarf the >>other ideas. > >Don't forget that anything using fusion power other than H-bombs is >speculation. > >An antimatter rocket, unlike a (non-H-bomb based) fusion rocket, could >conceivably by designed and flown using current technology. It would >be fantastically expensive, and perform worse than a bottlerocket, >but it could conceivably be done. > >>But if we could cut the cost down, or create antimatter on >>demand with a light low power systems (might be possible with some theorized >>physics tricks) it would be great. > >>Forwards laser sail idea is light and efficent, but the drop sail idea >>requires you to keep hundreds (or thousands?) of square miles of unanchored >>foil precisely shaped into an optically precise form focused on a high speed >>moving and manuvering target, that it can't see. > >It's not light or efficient. But it could theoretically work. > >>Fuel/sail avoids a 160,000 to 1 fuel ratio of a pure fusion rocket, and uses >>cheap and plentifull fuel. But it requers a massive array of solar powered >>microwave sats in our solar system. > >You were looking to avoid a mere 160,000-1 fuel ratio? In favor >of a 400-1 fuel ratio? Just how lightweight did you think the >microwave satellites were going to be? Show me numbers. Power-weight >ratios. Desired output thrust. I'll bet that given any reasonable >numbers, you'll find that the mass of the microwave emitter satellites >will end up weighing more than 400 times the sailship. Don't care about the weight of the sats since we don't need to carry them. Thats like worrying about the weight of Kennedy launch facilities in calculating the mass ration of a rocket. >For every kilogram of sailship, you need 1,500,000,000 watts to >push 1 gee. Assuming your emitter satellites were 500 times the >mass of the sailship, that means they have a power/weight ratio >of at least 3,000,000 watts/kg (this includes the collectors, >emitters, and lenses)! > >If you can't even do that, then you're massive array of satellites >is going to weigh more than the huge amount of fuel you're trying >to avoid using. And I'll bet you that fuel costs less per kg >than microwave beam satellite. The cost is at least a good question. As a rough guess the 160000 to 1 ration ships fuel would cost 1,600 trillion dollars ($1.6 E 15) at current comercial rates. if you assume 1,500,000,000 watts (I wasn't assuming a 1 g thrust by the way) and a 40,000,000,000 kilogram fuel sail ship. Thats about 60 E 18 watts. At current power plant costs on earth that would run about E 18 dollars. So assuming you only want to launch 1 ship, one time (and assuming no changes in costs) the staged fussion ship would cost less. Thou the microwave platforms could pay their way selling power comercially, which could complicate the economics. >>All in all we are down to designs that seems extreamly expensive, but >>possible. Or ones the requre unknown physics or technology. > >Positive feedback fusion technology, other than H-bombs, is unknown >technology. ? No we have had runing fusion reactions that produced more power then they took to run, and have other systms that could work efficently at those scales. >-- > _____ Isaac Kuo Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Dec 6 02:09 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2784" "Sat" "6" "December" "1997" "01:09:50" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "73" "Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA16062 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 02:09:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo15.mail.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.170]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA16056 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 02:09:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <963f2c95.3488ec31@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2783 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 01:09:50 EST In a message dated 12/4/97 9:27:13 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>In a message dated 12/1/97 7:50:01 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: > >>>You can say Forwards pure sail system is also "simple brute force tech". >>>Actually, it requires much less technology than this "fuel/sail" idea. >>>It doesn't require exotic fusion technology. > >>However the drop sail/reflector had serious problems and would probably not >>be able to function, much less acuratly target and decelerate the ship. >> Which is why we droped it from consideration a couple years ago. > >The technical problems with Forward's pure sail system are dwarfed by >the technical challenge of building the astronomical beam emitter >system in the first place. Not really, the latter is just a question of scale. We could certainly build it, we just could afford it. Forwards system is probably technically impossible regardless of cost. >Consider that even his proposed 1000km lens for the smallest of his >Starwisp proposals is already ludicrously beyond anything we can >seriously think of building in the foreseeable future. > >>>However, the sheer size of that "brute force" is inconceivably massive. > >>So was the Sat-V concept at the time. But I agree the scale and its implied >>cost are critical problems. > >No it wasn't. It's only a couple orders of magnitude larger than its >predecessors. At the time it was proposed and designed our best boosters were failing to lift 30 pound objects to orbit. The Sat-v was rated at 220,000 pounds to orbit. 4 orders of magnitude performance boost out of the same integrated system. (I'm assuming you don't consider the "only a couple orders of magnitude" larger?) The sail systems could just use fleets of (hopefully by then) 'standard' orbital microwave power sats. >The manned sail system is more like a dozen orders of magnitude beyond >what we've ever done in critical areas. > >>>Especially when you consider that a modified design would only require >>>a fraction of a percent of the effort. > >>But as I listed before, and went over with numbers, your modified design >>wouldn't save a dramatic amount of power (possibly none), but would add a >>serious intercept problem (scatering your hundreds of fuel packages over >>about a light year and a half). > >You did not. You didn't even read my modified design (much less >understood it). > >As I stated it, the power requirement was reduced by two orders of >magnitude. If you want to dispute it, then at least read the >details to my modified design. I did, and responded a couple weeks back. You refused to read it past my "assuming you use 200 fuel packets" line at the start. Lets just drop this argument, its going no where. >-- > _____ Isaac Kuo Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Dec 6 02:55 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["482" "Sat" "6" "December" "1997" "01:09:57" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "17" "Re: RE: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA10134 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 02:55:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo18.mail.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.175]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA10120 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 02:55:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <67be0995.3488ec37@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 481 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 01:09:57 EST In a message dated 12/5/97 1:59:41 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >> I would argue we pick only _very_ likely advances. Either that or >> admit that there's no particular reason to think the design will >> _ever_ work. > >If we had always funded research that way, we wouldn't even have fission... > >Lee You don't do research that way (you research everything, just in case) but when you do engneering design you don't plan on anything that depends on a lot of luck. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Dec 6 04:45 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2641" "Sat" "6" "December" "1997" "01:10:05" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "63" "Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA25137 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 04:45:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.165]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA25123 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 04:44:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2640 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 01:10:05 EST In a message dated 12/4/97 3:09:55 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>In a message dated 12/3/97 7:23:07 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >>>> From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) > >>>> I disagree. If I were offered the chance to fly on a 1 way mission >>>> to the Alpha Centauri systems at .2c (where I'd then spend the rest >>>> of my life), I for one would jump at it. I'm sure there are many >>>> others who'd be just as excited to do so. > >>>Hey, Isaac, I was one of the first on the list, quite a time ago, >>>to be excited to go. > >>As an asside it would be far cheaper to do a two way mission then a quicker >>one way mission, since you'ld to launch a couple orders of magnitude less >>stuff to build a sustainable colony.... > >>Opps forget, you were happy with a one way suicide mission. (I.E. no return, >>no sustainable colony/life support, and the folks back home get to bet on the >>ship or crew dieing first on internation TV.) > >It's not a suicide mission. Suicide is purposefully dying prematurely. >With a couple hundred years of life support supplies, there's no >inherent reason why the crew would die prematurely. Actually even if you had a couple hundred years of suplies its unlikely the ship could stay functional for more then a few decades. Normal systems on that scale usually burn out after 40-50 years. Given the lack of replacement parts (stored parts also don't last forever), and the fact the crew would also be wearing out (thus lowering their ability toservice the craft), the ship probably wouldn't last as long as the crew theoretically could. Humm.. then again the crew isn't going to have access to top of the line medical facilities (or non aging medical personel) so their life expectancy would be shortened too. >As for 2-way vs. 1-way, I gave as an example a .2c cruise speed. >A 2-way mission at .1c would take at least 80 years to get there >and back! With current human lifespans, that sounds to me a >hell of a lot worse than going one way in 20 years and then spending >the next half century or so basking in the warmth of alien suns. I don't follow the numbers. First you state a .2c cruse speed vs a .1. Why would a 2 way mission use a slower ship? Oh, and since your stuck in the same ship parked there, or on the flight back (no you can't spend you years on an alien beach), I can't see how parked would be prefereable. >>I can't imagine why I thought it would never be aproved. ;) > >>OH, did you know that Idea was proposed for Mars exploration at the 'Case >>for Mars' conference last year? > >No. >-- > _____ Isaac Kuo Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Dec 6 08:31 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1161" "Sat" "6" "December" "1997" "10:31:26" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "26" "starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA28662 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 08:31:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA28644 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 08:31:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA26252; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 10:31:26 -0600 Message-Id: <9712061631.AA26252@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <01BD0159.9AF1D8E0.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Dec 5, 97 08:39:04 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1160 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net (L. Parker) Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 10:31:26 -0600 (CST) L. Parker wrote: >I would venture that ANY concept we currently have going is more than a few >orders of magnitude from being interstellar capable. As you said in an >earlier post (regarding solar sails in particular), they are capable on >intersystem use only. My personal favorite is a modified MagOrion, where a track of nuclear bombs are used to accelerate a large superconducting magsail. The bombs are detonated far from the magsail so that the exposure to hard radiation is minimized and the push from the fraction of ions which "hit" the sail is spread out. Unfortunately, I do not have even vague numbers on bomb mass, yields, and products. These are absolutely critical to determining how feasable this concept is. Does anyone else here have numbers for this? My intuition is that if we could get around treaty limitations, it would be possible to send an interstellar probe to Alpha Centauri within our lifetimes (but it wouldn't arrive until later). -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Dec 6 08:48 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3532" "Sat" "6" "December" "1997" "10:48:22" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "86" "Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA01913 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 08:48:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA01751 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 08:48:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA26751; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 10:48:23 -0600 Message-Id: <9712061648.AA26751@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <963f2c95.3488ec31@aol.com> from "KellySt@aol.com" at Dec 6, 97 01:09:50 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3531 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 10:48:22 -0600 (CST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 12/4/97 9:27:13 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>>In a message dated 12/1/97 7:50:01 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>>>You can say Forwards pure sail system is also "simple brute force tech". >>>>Actually, it requires much less technology than this "fuel/sail" idea. >>>>It doesn't require exotic fusion technology. >>>However the drop sail/reflector had serious problems and would probably not >>>be able to function, much less acuratly target and decelerate the ship. >>> Which is why we droped it from consideration a couple years ago. >>The technical problems with Forward's pure sail system are dwarfed by >>the technical challenge of building the astronomical beam emitter >>system in the first place. >Not really, the latter is just a question of scale. We could certainly build >it, we just could afford it. Forwards system is probably technically >impossible regardless of cost. It's not just a question of scale. The emitter system has to roughly keep "flat", and it's inconceivably huge (the emitter for the deceleration leg must fire its beam over interstellar distances). If you can create that interstellar beam emitter system at all, the rest seems like child's play. >>>So was the Sat-V concept at the time. But I agree the scale and its implied >>>cost are critical problems. >>No it wasn't. It's only a couple orders of magnitude larger than its >>predecessors. >At the time it was proposed and designed our best boosters were failing to >lift 30 pound objects to orbit. The Sat-v was rated at 220,000 pounds to >orbit. 4 orders of magnitude performance boost out of the same integrated >system. (I'm assuming you don't consider the "only a couple orders of >magnitude" larger?) Comparing oranges to apples. Our "best" boosters weren't rated at only 30 pounds--they were just trying to fly them with those small paloads. Actually, at the time our boosters _had_ put objects in orbit (I'm talking about the Soviets--they're humans too). >The sail systems could just use fleets of (hopefully by then) 'standard' >orbital microwave power sats. Yes, it's technically possible. However, the many orders of magnitude in scale needed to get up to an interstellar beam emitter is just implausible in the next decades. >>You did not. You didn't even read my modified design (much less >>understood it). >>As I stated it, the power requirement was reduced by two orders of >>magnitude. If you want to dispute it, then at least read the >>details to my modified design. >I did, and responded a couple weeks back. No you didn't, and you further evidence it here. >You refused to read it past my >"assuming you use 200 fuel packets" line at the start. No, you "assumed several hundred" when _I_ explicitely wrote "200". This was in the text you quoted immediately above your unnecessary assumption! Further evidence that you just can't keep track of what's being said--even by yourself! >Lets just drop this argument, its going no where. It might go somewhere if you read my proof and dispute _it_, and not some mixture of your own fantasy and straw man. Honestly, it's better for you to dispute it with a logical argument than for you to simply dismiss it out of hand. Which is what you're doing if you don't even read it carefully. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Dec 6 08:55 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["311" "Sat" "6" "December" "1997" "17:53:54" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "10" "starship-design: Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: RE!" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA02651 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 08:55:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl ([148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA02643 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 08:55:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA10300; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 17:53:54 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199712061653.RAA10300@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 310 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: starship-design: Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: RE! Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 17:53:54 +0100 (MET) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Dec 6 17:48:59 1997 > From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) > Subject: Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver > Hey, folks, can you do something with that accumulating strings of Re:'s? They become just slightly annoying... -- Zenon From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Dec 6 09:29 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7001" "Sat" "6" "December" "1997" "11:29:57" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "156" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA08913 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 09:29:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA08863 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 09:29:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA28875; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 11:29:58 -0600 Message-Id: <9712061729.AA28875@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <866cd095.3488ec3b@aol.com> from "KellySt@aol.com" at Dec 6, 97 01:10:01 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 7000 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 11:29:57 -0600 (CST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 12/5/97 3:44:11 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>>Agreed. Best we can do is pick likely or unlikely advances, and keep to >>>systems that seem to have a good mix of simplicity and performance. >>I would argue we pick only _very_ likely advances. Either that or >>admit that there's no particular reason to think the design will >>_ever_ work. >>For instance, any design which requires fusion power other than from >>H-bombs is speculation. >Actually we do have working fusion systems. Some need more efficent systems >like lasers and such. Others aren't commercially usable to produce >electricity. But we do have them. We do _not_ have any working fusion power. So far, every fusion reactor even built requires more energy to start/maintain fusion than it returns. If you've got something to the contrary, I would very much appreciate a reference. Right now, we have working fusion power the same way we have working perpetual motion devices. >Beyond that plannig on such systems in the next 50 years is highly >conservative even by the standrads of commercial investors. Commercial investors take amazing risks all the time. They need to do so in order to make their overall profits. That is the nature of investment. Given the current profitability of the stock market compared to bonds, I would have thought that obvious. >>>For example: >>>If we wait for physics to come up with major changes (zero-point energy, >>>inertia damping, gravity control, etc..) we could get fantasic increases in >>>performance, speed, etc. But we haven't a clue what might be discovered and >>>perfected in the next 50 years. >>I seriously doubt any of these will be a factor, ever. I'm in the >>majority camp which figures that the density of zero point energy >>is uselessly small. >>Something _might_ be discovered in the next millenia which will lead >>to fantastic increases in space propulsion beyond the theoretical >>anti-matter rocket. If so, I'll bet it won't look anything like >>anything we've imagined. >We only figured out mass conversion and fission theories in the last hundred >years. Expecting we woun't find a few such stagering things in the next >hundred is really better against the odds and history. So what? I know it's against the odds to expect currently foreseeable technology to remain the "best" for the next century. However, I also know it's against the odds to correctly guess any new technology _any_ amount in the future. Any successful guesses in the past are merely lucky guesses, with no predictive value. Therefore, anything we would work out a rough design for must come from known technology. Even if we wanted to speculate on unknown technology, we'd only be guessing at its performance. >>>Fuel/sail avoids a 160,000 to 1 fuel ratio of a pure fusion rocket, and uses >>>cheap and plentifull fuel. But it requers a massive array of solar powered >>>microwave sats in our solar system. >>You were looking to avoid a mere 160,000-1 fuel ratio? In favor >>of a 400-1 fuel ratio? Just how lightweight did you think the >>microwave satellites were going to be? Show me numbers. Power-weight >>ratios. Desired output thrust. I'll bet that given any reasonable >>numbers, you'll find that the mass of the microwave emitter satellites >>will end up weighing more than 400 times the sailship. >Don't care about the weight of the sats since we don't need to carry them. But you _do_ have to build them. That's going to cost--and by my estimate cost a hell of a lot more than the fuel you're "saving". I make that estimate using mass comparisons, because it's hard to say what the actual monetary costs may be in the future. I make the assumption that at any given time, the cost of a ton of fusion rocket fuel will be less than the cost of a ton of beam emitter array. >>For every kilogram of sailship, you need 1,500,000,000 watts to >>push 1 gee. Assuming your emitter satellites were 500 times the >>mass of the sailship, that means they have a power/weight ratio >>of at least 3,000,000 watts/kg (this includes the collectors, >>emitters, and lenses)! >>If you can't even do that, then you're massive array of satellites >>is going to weigh more than the huge amount of fuel you're trying >>to avoid using. And I'll bet you that fuel costs less per kg >>than microwave beam satellite. >The cost is at least a good question. As a rough guess the 160000 to 1 ration >ships fuel would cost 1,600 trillion dollars ($1.6 E 15) at current comercial >rates. >if you assume 1,500,000,000 watts (I wasn't assuming a 1 g thrust by the way) >and a 40,000,000,000 kilogram fuel sail ship. Thats about 60 E 18 watts. At >current power plant costs on earth that would run about E 18 dollars. These costs aren't so useful, because they are terrestrial costs. It should go without saying that current costs of items on Earth probably won't reflect future costs of items in space. That's why I chose the mass based approach. >So assuming you only want to launch 1 ship, one time (and assuming >no changes in costs) the staged fussion ship would cost less. >Thou the microwave platforms could pay their way selling power >comercially, which could complicate the economics. The only saving grace of the laser sail vs. increased fuel would be that the beam emitters may already be built and/or they may be reused. For a first interstellar mission (which is what we should be discussing, since it's so hard already), it's unlikely they would already be built. There's no way to justify the expense of making them such long range other than being meant for an interstellar mission. The possible reuse of the lasers is particularly notable if it is reused in a single mission (e.g. sequencially launching multiple modules which provide deceleration fuel). However, the possible reuse of lasers for marketable power generation is, IMO, dubious. First, there has to be a market for that amount of power. Second, the introduction of that much extra power generation into the market will devalue itself. Third, in this example we assume fusion power is available for the deceleration leg. If that's the case, then who's going to bother buying beam power? All of these issues are debatable using speculative numbers, of course. >>>All in all we are down to designs that seems extreamly expensive, but >>>possible. Or ones the requre unknown physics or technology. >>Positive feedback fusion technology, other than H-bombs, is unknown >>technology. >? No we have had runing fusion reactions that produced more power then they >took to run, and have other systms that could work efficently at those scales. Huh? Give me a hard reference! This would be very exciting news! -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Dec 6 09:54 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3783" "Sat" "6" "December" "1997" "11:54:50" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "84" "Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA15016 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 09:54:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA14781 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 09:54:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA29824; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 11:54:50 -0600 Message-Id: <9712061754.AA29824@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: from "KellySt@aol.com" at Dec 6, 97 01:10:05 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3782 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 11:54:50 -0600 (CST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 12/4/97 3:09:55 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>>>> I disagree. If I were offered the chance to fly on a 1 way mission >>>>> to the Alpha Centauri systems at .2c (where I'd then spend the rest >>>>> of my life), I for one would jump at it. I'm sure there are many >>>>> others who'd be just as excited to do so. >>It's not a suicide mission. Suicide is purposefully dying prematurely. >>With a couple hundred years of life support supplies, there's no >>inherent reason why the crew would die prematurely. >Actually even if you had a couple hundred years of suplies its unlikely the >ship could stay functional for more then a few decades. Even if that were the case, it's not _certain_ to fail. At least in American culture, this is a critical difference. It's why we were willing to enlist in 2 dozen bombing mission tours but never even considered Kamikaze missions. >Normal systems on that scale usually burn out after 40-50 years. >Given the lack of replacement parts (stored parts also don't last >forever), They don't have to last forever. They just have to last several decades. >and the fact the crew would also be wearing out Why would the crew be wearing out? We'd be getting old after a while, but at that point it would be getting less and less important to have the equipment last much longer. >(thus lowering their ability toservice the craft), the ship >probably wouldn't last as long as the crew theoretically could. Humm.. then >again the crew isn't going to have access to top of the line medical >facilities (or non aging medical personel) so their life expectancy would be >shortened too. The life expectancy would indeed be greatly reduced compared to staying at home. Besides the lack of medical facilities, there's the issue of improvements in technology back at home. The worst case possibility is if someone develops a "fountain of youth pill", which can be manufactured on the ship. Then the crew would be guaranteed to die due to lack of supplies and/or ship failure. But none of this is _guaranteed_. So it's not a suicide mission. >>As for 2-way vs. 1-way, I gave as an example a .2c cruise speed. >>A 2-way mission at .1c would take at least 80 years to get there >>and back! With current human lifespans, that sounds to me a >>hell of a lot worse than going one way in 20 years and then spending >>the next half century or so basking in the warmth of alien suns. >I don't follow the numbers. First you state a .2c cruse speed vs a .1. Why >would a 2 way mission use a slower ship? Because a 1 way mission can go at 1/2 delta-v of a rocket, while a 2 way mission can only go at 1/4 delta-v. Alternatively, if beams are used for the acceleration run (and the deceleration run of the return journey), the 1 way mission can go at 100% delta-v, while the 2 way mission can only go at 50% delta-v. >Oh, and since your stuck in the same ship parked there, or on the flight back >(no you can't spend you years on an alien beach), I can't see how parked would >be prefereable. Alpha Centauri includes a binary system. It would indeed take decades to study this system, which is very different from our own. Being on site means being able to rig up whatever equipment is needed to make whatever observations are desired (a 2 way mission could leave behind unmanned probes, but they'd have more limited capabilities and wouldn't be able to react to scientific advances prompting new observations as quickly). Stars aren't just big balls of fire. Even studying our own Sun is a lifetime career! -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Dec 6 12:06 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1958" "Sat" "6" "December" "1997" "13:32:52" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "43" "starship-design: RE: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA26890 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 12:06:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA26863 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 12:06:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p18.gnt.com [204.49.68.223]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA17238; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 14:05:57 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 14:05:53 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD0250.105224E0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1957 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: RE: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 13:32:52 -0600 On Saturday, December 06, 1997 10:31 AM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > My personal favorite is a modified MagOrion, where a track of nuclear > bombs are used to accelerate a large superconducting magsail. The > bombs are detonated far from the magsail so that the exposure to > hard radiation is minimized and the push from the fraction of ions > which "hit" the sail is spread out. > You really ought to check out Penn State's page on ICAN and the antimatter catalyzed fission/fusion rocket. It is basically a modified Orion concept that is much more refined than the original. Besides the fact that the hardware is already being tested, it offers a lot more in near term improvement potential. The current reaction is D/T but with a few years of operation and improved confinement technology which seems likely, we should be able to move on to He3 with a second or third generation design. If you assume another ten years of research on the current generation (it would actually be in service by the end of this period), twenty years for research and development of second generation (same fuel, just more efficient confinement and improved systems), twenty years for third generation (use improved confinement and systems to fuse He3) then that puts us at fifty years. I haven't even used any hardware here that isn't already in existence or made any assumptions that are really weird. In the short run, we could use this in a brute force approach and simply add engines and increase the fuel supply to raise the cruise velocity. It has sufficient ISP for the "supertanker" category. Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- PLEASE NOTE: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That When the Consumer Is Not Directly Observing This Product, It May Cease to Exist or Will Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Dec 6 12:06 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1708" "Sat" "6" "December" "1997" "14:00:03" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "35" "Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA26891 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 12:06:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA26865 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 12:06:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p18.gnt.com [204.49.68.223]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA17264 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 14:06:04 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 14:05:59 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD0250.13FC8F40.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1707 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 14:00:03 -0600 Several months ago I made the statement that there is more incentive to stay in space where power is cheap, resources are plentiful and (comparatively) easy to get at. So I really have a hard time seeing why anyone would want to go to another star just to _settle_ on a planet. If you bear that in mind, and look at the mission profile as one that is designed to begin building an outpost in orbit in that system for the purpose of continuing exploration and creating a spaceborne infrastructure for follow on missions, only some of which might be concerned with actually landing on a planet, then it is not a one way mission. Nor is it exactly a colonization mission. It is a team of scientists, and engineers and technicians with a definite purpose - build a fully self sustaining outpost in orbit around another star. Once they have done that they can then build power stations to produce more fuel so that 2-way travel becomes more practicable. There would be additional personnel arriving on follow on missions and maybe eventually some of the original personnel might even get to go home. Remember that most of the people who will be going on these missions will probably have come from our off-planet population in the first place. They aren't going to see a great deal of difference between a colony on Luna or Ceres and one orbiting another star. Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- PLEASE NOTE: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That When the Consumer Is Not Directly Observing This Product, It May Cease to Exist or Will Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Dec 6 19:31 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["922" "Sat" "6" "December" "1997" "22:26:44" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "30" "starship-design: Re: (no subject)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA29125 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 19:31:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.170]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA29117 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 19:31:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <74281e4b.348a1777@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 921 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: DAMAIN@Antares.it, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: (no subject) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 22:26:44 EST In a message dated 12/6/97 8:39:37 AM, you wrote: >I'm a student frequenting the second year of Mechanics Engineering at >Arcavacata's University U.N.I.C.A.L (ITALY,Cosenza). >Both for passion and for study i decided to prepare a short dissertation >about the motion of the Moon around Earth, for the course of Classic >Mechanics. > >I would like represent mathematically the motion of our satellite >(orbit,etc) delaing first the two bodies problem and successively the >one of three , considering the gravitational influence of Sun, and if >possible perturbation and so on. > >I call you for help about Internet sities, publications and other on the >subject; and over all advisements and precise data concerning daily >distance from Earth,coordinate,etc. > >THANK YOU. > >Main > >Cosenza. Any I could think of would be in the LIT Library pages. I'll CC the group and see if they have other suggestions. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Dec 7 05:07 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["190" "Sun" "7" "December" "1997" "14:06:21" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "9" "starship-design: Re: NASA Looks Toward Visionary Interstellar Travel" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA23263 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 05:07:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA23258 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 05:07:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-027.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xegRi-001WUJC; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 14:08:30 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 189 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: NASA Looks Toward Visionary Interstellar Travel Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 14:06:21 +0100 NASA has nothing to say on their pages, except that they don't really have a clue. Their press-message is a cheap way of saying: "Hey look at our new and improved home page" Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Dec 7 08:00 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["9475" "Sun" "7" "December" "1997" "10:59:36" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "229" "starship-design: debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA17507 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 08:00:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.177]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA17497 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 08:00:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 9474 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: debate Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 10:59:36 EST In a message dated 12/6/97 12:05:58 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>In a message dated 12/5/97 3:44:11 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: > >>>KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >>>>Agreed. Best we can do is pick likely or unlikely advances, and keep to >>>>systems that seem to have a good mix of simplicity and performance. > >>>I would argue we pick only _very_ likely advances. Either that or >>>admit that there's no particular reason to think the design will >>>_ever_ work. > >>>For instance, any design which requires fusion power other than from >>>H-bombs is speculation. > >>Actually we do have working fusion systems. Some need more efficent systems >>like lasers and such. Others aren't commercially usable to produce >>electricity. But we do have them. > >We do _not_ have any working fusion power. > >So far, every fusion reactor even built requires more energy to >start/maintain fusion than it returns. If you've got something >to the contrary, I would very much appreciate a reference. ? We have had several fusion systems where more energy was taped out from the reaction then took to start it, thou the inefficency of the systems was too great to get positive payback from the whole system (my favority being the comercial laser fusion tests in the '80's). If the systems used better systems or were scaled up, they would have been able to produce power. And a few years ago the DOE annouced one of their systems had reached and exceeded breakeven. None of these systems would be comercially usable. Some could have been upgraded with current tech to be more usable, but their currently no funding and little interest. >Right now, we have working fusion power the same way we have working >perpetual motion devices. > >>Beyond that plannig on such systems in the next 50 years is highly >>conservative even by the standrads of commercial investors. > >Commercial investors take amazing risks all the time. They need to >do so in order to make their overall profits. That is the nature >of investment. Given the current profitability of the stock market >compared to bonds, I would have thought that obvious. Commercial investors never take amazing risks. Their entire focus is to avoid amazing risks. >>>>For example: > >>>>If we wait for physics to come up with major changes (zero-point energy, >>>>inertia damping, gravity control, etc..) we could get fantasic increases in >>>>performance, speed, etc. But we haven't a clue what might be discovered and >>>>perfected in the next 50 years. > >>>I seriously doubt any of these will be a factor, ever. I'm in the >>>majority camp which figures that the density of zero point energy >>>is uselessly small. > >>>Something _might_ be discovered in the next millenia which will lead >>>to fantastic increases in space propulsion beyond the theoretical >>>anti-matter rocket. If so, I'll bet it won't look anything like >>>anything we've imagined. > >>We only figured out mass conversion and fission theories in the last hundred >>years. Expecting we woun't find a few such stagering things in the next >>hundred is really better against the odds and history. > >So what? So your comment that "Something _might_ be discovered in the next millenia which will lead to fantastic increases in space propulsion..." is statistacally far to conservative. Such things are statistically medium likely in the next century, virtually certain in a the next 3. >I know it's against the odds to expect currently foreseeable technology >to remain the "best" for the next century. > >However, I also know it's against the odds to correctly guess any >new technology _any_ amount in the future. Any successful guesses >in the past are merely lucky guesses, with no predictive value. > >Therefore, anything we would work out a rough design for must come >from known technology. Even if we wanted to speculate on unknown >technology, we'd only be guessing at its performance. > >>>>Fuel/sail avoids a 160,000 to 1 fuel ratio of a pure fusion rocket, and uses >>>>cheap and plentifull fuel. But it requers a massive array of solar powered >>>>microwave sats in our solar system. > >>>You were looking to avoid a mere 160,000-1 fuel ratio? In favor >>>of a 400-1 fuel ratio? Just how lightweight did you think the >>>microwave satellites were going to be? Show me numbers. Power-weight >>>ratios. Desired output thrust. I'll bet that given any reasonable >>>numbers, you'll find that the mass of the microwave emitter satellites >>>will end up weighing more than 400 times the sailship. > >>Don't care about the weight of the sats since we don't need to carry them. > >But you _do_ have to build them. That's going to cost--and by my >estimate cost a hell of a lot more than the fuel you're "saving". > >I make that estimate using mass comparisons, because it's hard to >say what the actual monetary costs may be in the future. I make >the assumption that at any given time, the cost of a ton of fusion >rocket fuel will be less than the cost of a ton of beam emitter >array. Mass comparisons are rather irrelavent. The cost of an ore, vrs a manufactured systems vary wildly, and are not liniarly related to mass. So I can't think of any reason to base cost assumptions on weight. For example the cost of a ton of fusion fuel (lithium-6 in this case) could varie wildly depending on sources found, mining tech, and total consuption. Similar factors for the emmiter arrays would have reverse effects (increase demand would lower the production costs due to economies of scale, vs cost driven by suply and demand on mining reserves). >>>For every kilogram of sailship, you need 1,500,000,000 watts to >>>push 1 gee. Assuming your emitter satellites were 500 times the >>>mass of the sailship, that means they have a power/weight ratio >>>of at least 3,000,000 watts/kg (this includes the collectors, >>>emitters, and lenses)! > >>>If you can't even do that, then you're massive array of satellites >>>is going to weigh more than the huge amount of fuel you're trying >>>to avoid using. And I'll bet you that fuel costs less per kg >>>than microwave beam satellite. > >>The cost is at least a good question. As a rough guess the 160000 to 1 ration >>ships fuel would cost 1,600 trillion dollars ($1.6 E 15) at current comercial >>rates. > >>if you assume 1,500,000,000 watts (I wasn't assuming a 1 g thrust by the way) >>and a 40,000,000,000 kilogram fuel sail ship. Thats about 60 E 18 watts. At >>current power plant costs on earth that would run about E 18 dollars. > >These costs aren't so useful, because they are terrestrial costs. >It should go without saying that current costs of items on Earth >probably won't reflect future costs of items in space. That's why >I chose the mass based approach. > >>So assuming you only want to launch 1 ship, one time (and assuming >>no changes in costs) the staged fussion ship would cost less. >>Thou the microwave platforms could pay their way selling power >>comercially, which could complicate the economics. > >The only saving grace of the laser sail vs. increased fuel would be >that the beam emitters may already be built and/or they may be reused. > >For a first interstellar mission (which is what we should be discussing, >since it's so hard already), it's unlikely they would already be >built. There's no way to justify the expense of making them such >long range other than being meant for an interstellar mission. Which is another advatage of a dispered phased array system that could be adapted to longer range without significant modification. (Even thou the efficence would decline.) >The possible reuse of the lasers is particularly notable if it is >reused in a single mission (e.g. sequencially launching multiple >modules which provide deceleration fuel). > >However, the possible reuse of lasers for marketable power generation >is, IMO, dubious. First, there has to be a market for that amount >of power. Presumably for large scale industrial operations in space, such as non near earth asteropid work and transport. But agreed, this is speculative. >Second, the introduction of that much extra power generation >into the market will devalue itself. Quit likely. >Third, in this example we >assume fusion power is available for the deceleration leg. If that's >the case, then who's going to bother buying beam power? I can't follow this bit. >All of these >issues are debatable using speculative numbers, of course. > >>>>All in all we are down to designs that seems extreamly expensive, but >>>>possible. Or ones the requre unknown physics or technology. > >>>Positive feedback fusion technology, other than H-bombs, is unknown >>>technology. > >>? No we have had runing fusion reactions that produced more power then they >>took to run, and have other systms that could work efficently at those scales. > >Huh? Give me a hard reference! This would be very exciting news! Why? It hardly made the evening news at the time, and isn't that big of a milestone. Its not like they were comercially usable systems, or even adaptible to such things. Even if they were, they certainly wern't adaptable to commercial operation in our power grids at competative prices. Even the DOE is grdgingly admiting their tours fusion systems, even if capable of producing power competativly, could not be used in any power market now invisioned. >-- > _____ Isaac Kuo Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Dec 7 08:00 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4496" "Sun" "7" "December" "1997" "10:59:30" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "118" "starship-design: debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA17511 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 08:00:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.167]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA17498 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 08:00:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <2cb8ab50.348ac7e4@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 4495 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: debate Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 10:59:30 EST In a message dated 12/6/97 10:51:38 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>In a message dated 12/4/97 9:27:13 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: > >>>KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>>>In a message dated 12/1/97 7:50:01 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: > >>>>>You can say Forwards pure sail system is also "simple brute force tech". >>>>>Actually, it requires much less technology than this "fuel/sail" idea. >>>>>It doesn't require exotic fusion technology. > >>>>However the drop sail/reflector had serious problems and would probably not >>>>be able to function, much less acuratly target and decelerate the ship. >>>> Which is why we droped it from consideration a couple years ago. > >>>The technical problems with Forward's pure sail system are dwarfed by >>>the technical challenge of building the astronomical beam emitter >>>system in the first place. > >>Not really, the latter is just a question of scale. We could certainly build >>it, we just could afford it. Forwards system is probably technically >>impossible regardless of cost. > >It's not just a question of scale. The emitter system has to roughly >keep "flat", and it's inconceivably huge (the emitter for the >deceleration leg must fire its beam over interstellar distances). >If you can create that interstellar beam emitter system at all, >the rest seems like child's play. Thats why you need a phased array systems. That way its not important where the individuale elements are. Just they they know exactly where they are relative to one another. >>>>So was the Sat-V concept at the time. But I agree the scale and its implied >>>>cost are critical problems. > >>>No it wasn't. It's only a couple orders of magnitude larger than its >>>predecessors. > >>At the time it was proposed and designed our best boosters were failing to >>lift 30 pound objects to orbit. The Sat-v was rated at 220,000 pounds to >>orbit. 4 orders of magnitude performance boost out of the same integrated >>system. (I'm assuming you don't consider the "only a couple orders of >>magnitude" larger?) > >Comparing oranges to apples. Our "best" boosters weren't rated at only >30 pounds--they were just trying to fly them with those small paloads. >Actually, at the time our boosters _had_ put objects in orbit (I'm >talking about the Soviets--they're humans too). I was refuring to the Late '50's when the early booster design studies for lunar missions were done.. Thou to be fair it was pretty obviuos we could convert the big missles, and by the time the space race officially begane were were fartherr along then I mentioned. >>The sail systems could just use fleets of (hopefully by then) 'standard' >>orbital microwave power sats. > >Yes, it's technically possible. However, the many orders of magnitude >in scale needed to get up to an interstellar beam emitter is just >implausible in the next decades. Unaffordable, yes. Certainly I can't think of anyreason we would put the kind of funds and effort it would take to do this by then unless (as I've stated earlier) some manufacturing tech (like automated selfreplicating systems) drastically lowered the cost. >>>You did not. You didn't even read my modified design (much less >>>understood it). > >>>As I stated it, the power requirement was reduced by two orders of >>>magnitude. If you want to dispute it, then at least read the >>>details to my modified design. > >>I did, and responded a couple weeks back. > >No you didn't, and you further evidence it here. > >>You refused to read it past my >>"assuming you use 200 fuel packets" line at the start. > >No, you "assumed several hundred" when _I_ explicitely wrote "200". >This was in the text you quoted immediately above your unnecessary >assumption! Further evidence that you just can't keep track of >what's being said--even by yourself! STOP WHINNING!! >>Lets just drop this argument, its going no where. > >It might go somewhere if you read my proof and dispute _it_, and not >some mixture of your own fantasy and straw man. > >Honestly, it's better for you to dispute it with a logical argument >than for you to simply dismiss it out of hand. > >Which is what you're doing if you don't even read it carefully. I did read it, and responded to it with technical criticisms, and several times mentioned parts that I could clearly interpret. Given the obvious contradictions I'm eaither not following what your saying, or your idea seems contradictory. >-- > _____ Isaac Kuo Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Dec 7 08:01 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5777" "Sun" "7" "December" "1997" "10:59:57" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "132" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA17549 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 08:01:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.174]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA17542 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 08:00:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <69c02e50.348ac800@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 5776 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 10:59:57 EST In a message dated 12/6/97 12:08:42 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >>In a message dated 12/4/97 3:09:55 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: > >>>>>> I disagree. If I were offered the chance to fly on a 1 way mission >>>>>> to the Alpha Centauri systems at .2c (where I'd then spend the rest >>>>>> of my life), I for one would jump at it. I'm sure there are many >>>>>> others who'd be just as excited to do so. > >>>It's not a suicide mission. Suicide is purposefully dying prematurely. >>>With a couple hundred years of life support supplies, there's no >>>inherent reason why the crew would die prematurely. > >>Actually even if you had a couple hundred years of suplies its unlikely the >>ship could stay functional for more then a few decades. > >Even if that were the case, it's not _certain_ to fail. At least >in American culture, this is a critical difference. It's why we >were willing to enlist in 2 dozen bombing mission tours but never >even considered Kamikaze missions. It is statistically certain to fail. I.E. if you are asking a systems to work longer then the average mean time to failure of its parts, it will fail without the replacement of those parts. If the parts are primary structure (remember we'll be shaving weight margines to get the thing flying) you need major shipyard facilities. >>Normal systems on that scale usually burn out after 40-50 years. >>Given the lack of replacement parts (stored parts also don't last >>forever), > >They don't have to last forever. They just have to last several >decades. Many can't last a few years on the shelf. >>and the fact the crew would also be wearing out > >Why would the crew be wearing out? We'd be getting old after a >while, but at that point it would be getting less and less >important to have the equipment last much longer. It has to keep working for the crew to keep living. If it needs repair NOW, you can't just hope it woun't fail for a decade or two for the last crewman to die. It almost certainly will fail in months to years. >>(thus lowering their ability toservice the craft), the ship >>probably wouldn't last as long as the crew theoretically could. Humm.. then >>again the crew isn't going to have access to top of the line medical >>facilities (or non aging medical personel) so their life expectancy would be >>shortened too. > >The life expectancy would indeed be greatly reduced compared to >staying at home. Besides the lack of medical facilities, there's >the issue of improvements in technology back at home. > >The worst case possibility is if someone develops a "fountain of youth >pill", which can be manufactured on the ship. Then the crew would >be guaranteed to die due to lack of supplies and/or ship failure. > >But none of this is _guaranteed_. So it's not a suicide mission. Your sending people out to to a decade or two of work (at most until the exploration gear become unservicable) and then sit in the deralic ship until they die. Thats effectivly a suicide mission. I know a few folks in this group disagree, or don't care, but it still would meen no government on earth could get permision for such a mission. I.E. your throwing away a crew for no critical reason. Specifically your doing it to save money, which is really not going to sell. >>>As for 2-way vs. 1-way, I gave as an example a .2c cruise speed. >>>A 2-way mission at .1c would take at least 80 years to get there >>>and back! With current human lifespans, that sounds to me a >>>hell of a lot worse than going one way in 20 years and then spending >>>the next half century or so basking in the warmth of alien suns. > >>I don't follow the numbers. First you state a .2c cruse speed vs a .1. Why >>would a 2 way mission use a slower ship? > >Because a 1 way mission can go at 1/2 delta-v of a rocket, while a >2 way mission can only go at 1/4 delta-v. Alternatively, if beams >are used for the acceleration run (and the deceleration run of the >return journey), the 1 way mission can go at 100% delta-v, while >the 2 way mission can only go at 50% delta-v. The delta-v potential of a ship is related to the fuel mass ratios. The fuel mass ratios are exponetial, not linear. I.E. a ship that needs to accelerate and decelerat with onboard fuel (Li-6 fusion fuel) needs 400 times the fuel load of one that just needs to accelerat or decelerate not both. Or for a 2 way unrefueled mission it would need 400^3 as much fuel. >>Oh, and since your stuck in the same ship parked there, or on the flight back >>(no you can't spend you years on an alien beach), I can't see how parked would >>be prefereable. > >Alpha Centauri includes a binary system. It would indeed take decades >to study this system, which is very different from our own. Being >on site means being able to rig up whatever equipment is needed to >make whatever observations are desired (a 2 way mission could leave >behind unmanned probes, but they'd have more limited capabilities and >wouldn't be able to react to scientific advances prompting new >observations as quickly). > >Stars aren't just big balls of fire. Even studying our own Sun is >a lifetime career! Without tools? The systems will wear out and your light years from the manufacturing infastructure needed to keep all the stuff working. As a wrough guess I'ld expect the transport shuttles and such to burn out in under 20 years, and the main ship sensors and systems to be maybe good for 40. Past that your need to strip those systems for pars to regulate life support, medical, etc.. I.E. you not talking about spending your life studing the starsystem. Most of the time your just going to be working to keep the last of the ship (and yourselves) alive. >-- > _____ Isaac Kuo Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Dec 7 08:02 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2133" "Sun" "7" "December" "1997" "11:00:01" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "47" "Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA17751 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 08:02:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.176]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA17746 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 08:02:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <8e459726.348ac804@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2132 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 11:00:01 EST In a message dated 12/6/97 2:52:53 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Several months ago I made the statement that there is more incentive to >stay in space where power is cheap, resources are plentiful and >(comparatively) easy to get at. So I really have a hard time seeing why >anyone would want to go to another star just to _settle_ on a planet. > >If you bear that in mind, and look at the mission profile as one that is >designed to begin building an outpost in orbit in that system for the >purpose of continuing exploration and creating a spaceborne infrastructure >for follow on missions, only some of which might be concerned with actually >landing on a planet, then it is not a one way mission. Nor is it exactly a >colonization mission. > >It is a team of scientists, and engineers and technicians with a definite >purpose - build a fully self sustaining outpost in orbit around another >star. Once they have done that they can then build power stations to >produce more fuel so that 2-way travel becomes more practicable. There >would be additional personnel arriving on follow on missions and maybe >eventually some of the original personnel might even get to go home. > >Remember that most of the people who will be going on these missions will >probably have come from our off-planet population in the first place. They >aren't going to see a great deal of difference between a colony on Luna or >Ceres and one orbiting another star. > >Lee That is an interesting mission profile, but has two problems. One it assumes your sure you want to keeping going back to that star systems on a regular basis. So far I never heard any credible reason we'ld want to. Two - your sure you want to keep using that system for decades. Three - it assumes you want to come back and forth so often that you'ld pay to send a much (10-100 times?) bigger construction expidition, and not just a couple exploration expiditions. First you send Lewis and Clark, then the pioneers, then the rail roads. ;) Seariously a big question we've never gotten very far with is why anyone would send such a mission? Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Dec 7 08:07 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["364" "Sun" "7" "December" "1997" "11:00:03" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "15" "Re: starship-design: Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: RE!" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA18378 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 08:07:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.166]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA18322 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 08:07:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4ff301a7.348ac806@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 363 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: RE! Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 11:00:03 EST In a message dated 12/6/97 11:09:41 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> Subject: Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver >> >Hey, folks, can you do something with that >accumulating strings of Re:'s? >They become just slightly annoying... > >-- Zenon Now you tell me, I just answered one of the Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: ........ 's Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Dec 7 12:40 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1388" "Sat" "6" "December" "1997" "01:09:44" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "43" "Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA29719 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 12:40:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.165]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA29711 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 12:40:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <2ef8ee15.3488ec2a@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1387 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 01:09:44 EST In a message dated 12/5/97 2:48:49 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> >-- Zenon >> > >> >PS. WARNING: Kelly is strongly against. >> > He declares it his duty to the mankind to stop us by force, >> > possibly even by shooting us! ;-) - Z >> >> >> Nah, I just feel that to preserve any chance of geting the program approved >> I'ld need to shoot anyone who'ld suggest it. ;) >> >> As an asside it would be far cheaper to do a two way mission then a quicker >> one way mission, since you'ld to launch a couple orders of magnitude less >> stuff to build a sustainable colony.... >> >> Opps forget, you were happy with a one way suicide mission. (I.E. no return, >> no sustainable colony/life support, and the folks back home get to bet on the >> ship or crew dieing first on internation TV.) >> >Wrong. I never was happy with THAT. > >I was happy with a one-way non-suicide mission. >That is, no return, colony/life support sustainable >till natural death (say, 200 year supplies should suffice, huh?). >An what the folks are doing back home... who cares? >My home will be over there... > >-- Zenon ;) Ah but that one would be impossible, or at least an order or two magnitude more expensive. Oh, the folks back home would have to pay the bills. You have to care what they want, or they woun't pay for it. (Capitalism rule one) ;) Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Dec 7 17:02 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2422" "Sun" "7" "December" "1997" "18:43:21" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "62" "RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA10044 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 17:02:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA10030 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 17:02:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p24.gnt.com [204.49.68.229]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA15703; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 19:02:08 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 19:02:01 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD0342.998FB9A0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2421 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Kelly St'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 18:43:21 -0600 On Sunday, December 07, 1997 10:00 AM, Kelly St [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: > > That is an interesting mission profile, but has two problems. > > One it assumes your sure you want to keeping going back to that star > systems > on a regular basis. So far I never heard any credible reason we'ld want > to. > > Two - your sure you want to keep using that system for decades. > > Three - it assumes you want to come back and forth so often that you'ld > pay to > send a much (10-100 times?) bigger construction expidition, and not just > a > couple exploration expiditions. One - Well, actually, there really isn't any credible reason for going there in the next 1,000 years if you get right down to it. I was assuming we were going, period. The lack of justification is global and doesn't just apply to my limited concept. Ask yourself this: what possible motive would any group have for mounting such an expensive enormous undertaking? What possible reward does it offer. You and Isaac were talking about breakeven on fusion - well this is a lose money/lose more money proposition. Two - Assuming that we found some reason to go in the first place, there is your answer for the next few decades... Three - I don't think a well planned engineering outpost would mass as much as a planetary colony expedition. This is more of a bootstrap proposition, a limited amount of engineering resources and the tech base to build more once you are there. It obviates the argument of component failure after decades of use since we would be building new ones by then. Of course, the systems still have to last long enough to get you there and then some. > > First you send Lewis and Clark, then the pioneers, then the rail roads. > ;) I will grant that is the way it was done in the past but this isn't comparable. The FACTORY has to go first to build the railroad so that Lewis and Clark can go... > > Seariously a big question we've never gotten very far with is why anyone > would > send such a mission? See, above. I still haven't found a sound reason to send any mission. Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- PLEASE NOTE: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That When the Consumer Is Not Directly Observing This Product, It May Cease to Exist or Will Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 8 01:49 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["429" "Mon" "8" "December" "1997" "10:49:04" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "15" "starship-design: Why?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA19946 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 01:49:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA19934 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 01:49:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-008.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xezqO-001XfnC; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 10:51:16 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 428 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Why? Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 10:49:04 +0100 >Seariously a big question we've never gotten very far with is why anyone would >send such a mission? Curiosity. Some would say that future robotic (AI) probes may do all the exploring for us. I'd not dare to despute that. However it's not merely listening to the tales of others that make us tick. First hand, real time experience is for many much more satisfying. For this reason we'd like to go there ourselves. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 8 06:13 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1431" "Mon" "8" "December" "1997" "15:10:34" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "39" "Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA24148 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 06:13:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA22894 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 06:11:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA00524; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 15:10:34 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199712081410.PAA00524@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1430 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 15:10:34 +0100 (MET) > From: Kelly St > > In a message dated 12/5/97 2:48:49 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: > > >Wrong. I never was happy with THAT. > > > >I was happy with a one-way non-suicide mission. > >That is, no return, colony/life support sustainable > >till natural death (say, 200 year supplies should suffice, huh?). > >An what the folks are doing back home... who cares? > >My home will be over there... > > ;) Ah but that one would be impossible, or at least an order or two > magnitude more expensive. > ?? As follows from all our discussions, the biggest problem is the propulsion. And the one-way mission has only HALF of this problem. So you calim that having half the problem makes it impossible or more expensive? I agree that the one-way outpost-building mission will need more supplies (including a sort of factory to build even more at the target), but I think this additional cost will be negligible as compared with the cost of engine/fuel needed for the way back. The engine for a two-way mission must be made reliable for twice the time and for two start-cruise-stop cycles. > Oh, the folks back home would have to pay the bills. You have to care what > they want, or they woun't pay for it. (Capitalism rule one) ;) > Agreed. But they will pay less for the one-way mission... (Take also into account the costs of awards, medals, and retirement funds for the return crew ;-)) -- Zenon From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 8 08:35 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3371" "Sun" "7" "December" "1997" "15:55:02" "-0600" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "63" "RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA04035 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 08:35:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA04008 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 08:35:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer ([207.0.193.133]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA03272; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 11:35:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by oemcomputer with Microsoft Mail id <01BD03C4.DAABAFC0@oemcomputer>; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 10:34:25 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD03C4.DAABAFC0@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id IAA04020 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 3370 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "lparker@cacaphony.net" , "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" , "'Kelly St'" Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 15:55:02 -0600 ---------- From: Kelly St[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, December 07, 1997 10:00 AM To: lparker@cacaphony.net; starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) In a message dated 12/6/97 2:52:53 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Several months ago I made the statement that there is more incentive to >stay in space where power is cheap, resources are plentiful and >(comparatively) easy to get at. So I really have a hard time seeing why >anyone would want to go to another star just to _settle_ on a planet. > >If you bear that in mind, and look at the mission profile as one that is >designed to begin building an outpost in orbit in that system for the >purpose of continuing exploration and creating a spaceborne infrastructure >for follow on missions, only some of which might be concerned with actually >landing on a planet, then it is not a one way mission. Nor is it exactly a >colonization mission. > >It is a team of scientists, and engineers and technicians with a definite >purpose - build a fully self sustaining outpost in orbit around another >star. Once they have done that they can then build power stations to >produce more fuel so that 2-way travel becomes more practicable. There >would be additional personnel arriving on follow on missions and maybe >eventually some of the original personnel might even get to go home. > >Remember that most of the people who will be going on these missions will >probably have come from our off-planet population in the first place. They >aren't going to see a great deal of difference between a colony on Luna or >Ceres and one orbiting another star. > >Lee That is an interesting mission profile, but has two problems. One it assumes your sure you want to keeping going back to that star systems on a regular basis. So far I never heard any credible reason we'ld want to. Two - your sure you want to keep using that system for decades. Three - it assumes you want to come back and forth so often that you'ld pay to send a much (10-100 times?) bigger construction expidition, and not just a couple exploration expiditions. First you send Lewis and Clark, then the pioneers, then the rail roads. ;) Seariously a big question we've never gotten very far with is why anyone would send such a mission? Because we are human. It is a driving motive in our lives, the need to explore, to reach out. I for one would volunteer to go on a one way mission. I don't like the condition of our planet anymore. Sice E-mail is so bad in its conveiance of feelings, perhaps I should explain my next statement: The visionaries of our world are nearly gone. What I mean by this is the ones that saw true worth in our exploration and expansion, those such as Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, and the like are all dying. The sad thing is, there seem to be few if any new visionaries like them. I, being a teenager, spend considerable time with other teenagers, and can tell you that the vision is gone. Arthur C. Clarke and Rober Bussard won't be around forever. I just wonder where the human in humanity has gone. Forgive me if this is too 'wordy'. Kyle Mcallister P.S.: For humor, there is a group on the internet that claim to be constructing a ship capable of 'Macroscopic Quantum Tunneling'. Maybe its just me, but that sounds like a contradiction! From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 8 09:08 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1170" "Mon" "8" "December" "1997" "11:05:14" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "28" "RE: starship-design: Why?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA21622 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 09:08:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA21547 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 09:08:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p42.gnt.com [204.49.68.247]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA28709; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 11:08:38 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 11:08:32 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD03C9.9E97CBE0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1169 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Timothy van der Linden'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Why? Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 11:05:14 -0600 On Monday, December 08, 1997 3:49 AM, Timothy van der Linden [SMTP:TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl] wrote: > Curiosity. Kelly, wanted a reason why we would send repeat missions. I was simply pointing out that if there was ANY reason to go in the first place, it would certainly be enough reason to go again and again... I don't deny that it is possible we will go out of simple curiosity. I just look at the cost and time involved and come up with the conclusion that the ONLY reason we will go is curiosity. What I was alluding to is that there is no sound economic basis for such a mission so profit as a motive is out. It is to expensive for simple wanderlust (so much for Eric the Red), and I find it implausible that ANY politician would seriously believe that the days of empires and colonies aren't over. All in all, its a tough sell for anything other than "because its there". Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the Solar System" - Robert Anson Heinlein From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 8 10:52 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2740" "Mon" "8" "December" "1997" "13:36:27" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "76" "Re: RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA26419 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 10:52:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.175]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA26333 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 10:52:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2739 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 13:36:27 EST In a message dated 12/7/97 7:47:18 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >On Sunday, December 07, 1997 10:00 AM, Kelly St [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] >wrote: >> >> That is an interesting mission profile, but has two problems. >> >> One it assumes your sure you want to keeping going back to that star >> systems >> on a regular basis. So far I never heard any credible reason we'ld want >> to. >> >> Two - your sure you want to keep using that system for decades. >> >> Three - it assumes you want to come back and forth so often that you'ld >> pay to >> send a much (10-100 times?) bigger construction expidition, and not just >> a >> couple exploration expiditions. > >One - Well, actually, there really isn't any credible reason for going >there in the next 1,000 years if you get right down to it. I was assuming >we were going, period. The lack of justification is global and doesn't just >apply to my limited concept. Ask yourself this: what possible motive would >any group have for mounting such an expensive enormous undertaking? What >possible reward does it offer. You and Isaac were talking about breakeven >on fusion - well this is a lose money/lose more money proposition. Sad but true. >Two - Assuming that we found some reason to go in the first place, there is >your answer for the next few decades... Only if you assume the reason justified going back again. A plant-the-flag expidition like Apollo, or a survey mission, would only need one trip. >Three - I don't think a well planned engineering outpost would mass as much >as a planetary colony expedition. This is more of a bootstrap proposition, >a limited amount of engineering resources and the tech base to build more >once you are there. It obviates the argument of component failure after >decades of use since we would be building new ones by then. Of course, the >systems still have to last long enough to get you there and then some. You still run into the problem of needing a pretty much selfsuficent system. That takes a lot more manufacturing stuff, which needs more parts, needs more skilled people, and other geometric etc.. >> >> First you send Lewis and Clark, then the pioneers, then the rail roads. >> ;) > >I will grant that is the way it was done in the past but this isn't >comparable. The FACTORY has to go first to build the railroad so that Lewis >and Clark can go... Then don't go by train. Most of our systems could get their once and back easier and cheaper then going their and seting up infastructure. >> >> Seariously a big question we've never gotten very far with is why anyone >> would >> send such a mission? > >See, above. I still haven't found a sound reason to send any mission. > >Lee Me neiather. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 8 10:56 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2678" "Mon" "8" "December" "1997" "13:35:34" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "69" "Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA29147 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 10:56:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.165]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA29107 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 10:56:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <27c8f6b5.348c3e88@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2677 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 13:35:34 EST In a message dated 12/8/97 9:19:56 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: Kelly St >> >> In a message dated 12/5/97 2:48:49 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> >> >Wrong. I never was happy with THAT. >> > >> >I was happy with a one-way non-suicide mission. >> >That is, no return, colony/life support sustainable >> >till natural death (say, 200 year supplies should suffice, huh?). >> >An what the folks are doing back home... who cares? >> >My home will be over there... >> >> ;) Ah but that one would be impossible, or at least an order or two >> magnitude more expensive. >> >?? As follows from all our discussions, >the biggest problem is the propulsion. >And the one-way mission has only HALF of this problem. >So you calim that having half the problem makes >it impossible or more expensive? ?! A one way flight does not halve the propulsion problem. Frankly if you can get there and refuel, geting back is a default ability of the ships. (Assuming you don't wear out the engines on route.) Thats one of the other reason I wanted a plentiful fuel like Lithium. On the other hand if the ship has to keep functional for several more decades (until the likely demise of the crew) the ship would need to be much bigger and heavyier, and far more self suficent. These would make it, and the mission more expensive. >I agree that the one-way outpost-building mission >will need more supplies (including a sort of factory >to build even more at the target), but I think >this additional cost will be negligible as compared with >the cost of engine/fuel needed for the way back. >The engine for a two-way mission must be made reliable >for twice the time and for two start-cruise-stop cycles. The engines would need to boost for months at a time anyway. So that demands a pretty stable and durable system. But since it has few moving parts (other then the fuel feed systems), and mainly electrocal and magnetic manipulation (or laser pulse) manipulation and fusion, it should pretty durable. So doubling its service life (or making it repairable) should be doable. The alternative of a far larger ship would require bigger heavier engines anyway. >> Oh, the folks back home would have to pay the bills. You have to care what >> they want, or they woun't pay for it. (Capitalism rule one) ;) >> >Agreed. But they will pay less for the one-way mission... >(Take also into account the costs of awards, medals, >and retirement funds for the return crew ;-)) ;) No I strongly beleave a two way mission would be cheaper and simpler to launch then a one way mission. (And politically much more viable.) >-- Zenon Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 8 11:07 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2122" "Mon" "8" "December" "1997" "11:07:42" "-0800" "Ken Wharton" "wharton@physics.ucla.edu" nil "42" "starship-design: RE: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA06473 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 11:07:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from physics.ucla.edu (physics.ucla.edu [128.97.23.13]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA06456 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 11:07:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from watt by physics.ucla.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA04848; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 11:07:42 -0800 Received: by watt (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA12688; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 11:07:42 -0800 Message-Id: <199712081907.LAA12688@watt> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2121 From: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: RE: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 11:07:42 -0800 Lee writes: >You really ought to check out Penn State's page on ICAN and the antimatter >catalyzed fission/fusion rocket. It is basically a modified Orion concept >that is much more refined than the original. Besides the fact that the >hardware is already being tested, it offers a lot more in near term >improvement potential. > >The current reaction is D/T but with a few years of operation and improved >confinement technology which seems likely, we should be able to move on to >He3 with a second or third generation design. If you assume another ten >years of research on the current generation (it would actually be in >service by the end of this period), twenty years for research and >development of second generation (same fuel, just more efficient >confinement and improved systems), twenty years for third generation (use >improved confinement and systems to fuse He3) then that puts us at fifty >years. > >I haven't even used any hardware here that isn't already in existence or >made any assumptions that are really weird. In the short run, we could use >this in a brute force approach and simply add engines and increase the fuel >supply to raise the cruise velocity. It has sufficient ISP for the >"supertanker" category. Yeah, I do like this idea. But "scaling" it up is going to be harder than it sounds, because most of the "fuel" isn't the DT or DHe3; it's the SiC plasma that gets shot out the back. With a 1000-1 SiC/DT ratio here you're never going to be able to make a ship that could go to another star with less than a 100,000 - 1 fuel/payload ratio; ridiculously high. Are there any ideas out there as to how to transfer raw fusion energy to propellent more efficiently?? One possibility would be to use the fusion products themselves as propellant, but for this scheme that merely increases the amount of antimatter you need by three orders of magnitude; no easy feat when it's already more than we can make. I think someone calculated that the ideal propellant speed is about 0.1c. Has anyone looked into how to make this type of engine, assuming fusion is possible? Ken From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 8 11:08 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1387" "Mon" "8" "December" "1997" "11:08:33" "-0800" "Ken Wharton" "wharton@physics.ucla.edu" nil "31" "starship-design: Re: debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA06931 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 11:08:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from physics.ucla.edu (physics.ucla.edu [128.97.23.13]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA06883 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 11:08:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from watt by physics.ucla.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA04873; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 11:08:33 -0800 Received: by watt (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA12697; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 11:08:33 -0800 Message-Id: <199712081908.LAA12697@watt> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1386 From: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: debate Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 11:08:33 -0800 Re: debate Kelly writes: >>>No we have had runing fusion reactions that produced more power then they >>>took to run, and have other systms that could work efficently at those scales. >> >>Huh? Give me a hard reference! This would be very exciting news! > >Why? It hardly made the evening news at the time, and isn't that big of a >milestone. Its not like they were comercially usable systems, or even >adaptible to such things. Even if they were, they certainly wern't adaptable >to commercial operation in our power grids at competative prices. Even the >DOE is grdgingly admiting their tours fusion systems, even if capable of >producing power competativly, could not be used in any power market now >invisioned. I think you're referring to the recent JET results, which didn't reach the break-even point... quite. They broke 50%, I think. Of course, you could never make a workable power plant from a device that didn't reach fusion ignition (a self-sustaining reaction), even if it does break even. As for your statement about no fusion system ever being competitive, you're forgetting that there will be another oil shock one day, and one other day coal is going to be a lot more expensive than it is now. True, fusion may never be cheaper than a fission breeder reactor, but it still may be competitive if current sentiments about fission don't change. Ken From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 8 12:13 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3621" "Mon" "8" "December" "1997" "21:12:08" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "96" "starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA18082 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 12:13:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA18047 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 12:12:54 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id VAA00901; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 21:12:08 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199712082012.VAA00901@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3620 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 21:12:08 +0100 (MET) From: Kelly St > > In a message dated 12/7/97 7:47:18 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: > > >> First you send Lewis and Clark, then the pioneers, then the rail roads. > >> ;) > > > >I will grant that is the way it was done in the past but this isn't > >comparable. The FACTORY has to go first to build the railroad so that > >Lewis and Clark can go... > > Then don't go by train. Most of our systems could get their once and back > easier and cheaper then going their and seting up infastructure. > That is debatable. My opinion is that it would be cheaper to go one-way to establish infrastructure (as I have written before the biggest problem as for now is the propulsion - certainly going one-way halves this problem). Especially in long run: two-way leaves practically nothing over there to go back for; establishing an outpost - well, establishes a target to return to (at least to help with new supplies them struggling over there...). Remember Apollo - a plant-the-flag mission has little consequences and does not lead to sustained exploration. The Russian "Mir", being a true outpost in near-space is since many years the only long-term space project - one of its main effects being prevention of Russian space program from a total collapse... The two-way mission "just to show it is possible" will also make a much less impact and consequence than the outpost-building. And, Kelly, you seem to contradict yourself at the costs issue - in another post you have written: > From: Kelly St > Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 10:59:57 EST > [...] > Thats effectivly a suicide mission. I know a few folks in this group > disagree, or don't care, but it still would meen no government on earth > could get permision for such a mission. > I.E. your throwing away a crew for no critical reason. > Specifically your doing it to save money, > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > which is really not going to sell. > I.e., you assume (and use it as an argument!) that one-way will save money... Voila! > >> Seariously a big question we've never gotten very far with is why > >> anyone would send such a mission? > > > >See, above. I still haven't found a sound reason to send any mission. > > > >Lee > > Me neiather. > > Kelly > Yes, in short term, there isn't any. But remember Sagan: "All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct." Of course, we must first settle our system to a significant degree (at least to be able to built a HUGE starship without hauling all that mass from Earth's gravity well). Thus, barring some great breakthrough like FTL, I do not see any real possibility (if not technological, then psycho-/econo-/political) to send a manned interstellar mission within 50 years or so. Returning to Sagan, his prediction already seems to turn the dangerous way - as Kyle has remarked: > From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" > > The visionaries of our world are nearly gone. What I mean by this is > the ones that saw true worth in our exploration and expansion, > those such as Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, and the like are all dying. > The sad thing is, there seem to be few if any new visionaries > like them. I, being a teenager, spend considerable > time with other teenagers, and can tell you that the vision is gone. > Arthur C. Clarke and Rober Bussard won't be around forever. > I just wonder where the human in humanity has gone. > Without opening a real big frontier in space, the humanity will decline even faster and earlier than we may expect. The symptoms are already quite visible. -- Zenon From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 8 18:50 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2025" "Mon" "8" "December" "1997" "20:44:47" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "59" "RE: starship-design: Re: debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA18756 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 18:50:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA18743 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 18:50:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p20.gnt.com [204.49.68.225]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA16315; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 20:50:36 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 20:50:25 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD041A.E88F2D00.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2024 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Ken Wharton'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: debate Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 20:44:47 -0600 On Monday, December 08, 1997 1:09 PM, Ken Wharton [SMTP:wharton@physics.ucla.edu] wrote: > > Re: debate > > Kelly writes: > > >>>No we have had runing fusion reactions that produced more power then > >>>they > >>>took to run, and have other systms that could work efficently at those > >>>scales. > >> > >>Huh? Give me a hard reference! This would be very exciting news! > > > >Why? It hardly made the evening news at the time, and isn't that big of > >a > >milestone. Its not like they were comercially usable systems, or even > >adaptible to such things. Even if they were, they certainly wern't > >adaptable > >to commercial operation in our power grids at competative prices. Even > >the > >DOE is grdgingly admiting their tours fusion systems, even if capable of > >producing power competativly, could not be used in any power market now > >invisioned. > > I think you're referring to the recent JET results, which didn't reach the > > break-even point... quite. They broke 50%, I think. Of course, you could > > never make a workable power plant from a device that didn't reach fusion > ignition (a self-sustaining reaction), even if it does break even. > > As for your statement about no fusion system ever being competitive, > you're > forgetting that there will be another oil shock one day, and one other day > > coal is going to be a lot more expensive than it is now. True, fusion may > > never be cheaper than a fission breeder reactor, but it still may be > competitive if current sentiments about fission don't change. Perhaps there is some confusion in semantics here. We have built plenty of fusion devices that surpass breakeven - just not devices that are viable as commercial powerplants. We aren't necessarily looking for a powerplant design, we are looking for a propulsion design. By default that includes a lot of the devices (such as bombs) that have surpassed breakeven. The antimatter catalyzed concept is just that, an Orion concept with extremely small fusion bombs. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 8 18:50 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["875" "Mon" "8" "December" "1997" "20:40:16" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "22" "RE: starship-design: RE: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA18755 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 18:50:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA18742 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 18:50:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p20.gnt.com [204.49.68.225]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA16294; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 20:50:30 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 20:50:18 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD041A.E499FE00.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 874 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Ken Wharton'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: RE: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 20:40:16 -0600 On Monday, December 08, 1997 1:08 PM, Ken Wharton [SMTP:wharton@physics.ucla.edu] wrote: > Are there any ideas out there as to how to transfer raw fusion energy to > propellent more efficiently?? One possibility would be to use the fusion > > products themselves as propellant, but for this scheme that merely > increases > the amount of antimatter you need by three orders of magnitude; no easy > feat > when it's already more than we can make. I think someone calculated that > > the ideal propellant speed is about 0.1c. Has anyone looked into how to > make this type of engine, assuming fusion is possible? There are some promising developments in magnetic nozzle design that might be combined with this fusion concept to at least increase the ISP another order of magnitude. As for the propellant, well, I didn't say the idea was perfect...just possible. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 04:51 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2296" "Tue" "9" "December" "1997" "13:50:10" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "50" "starship-design: What is savest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA20494 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 04:51:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA20483 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 04:51:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-006.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xfP9B-001XxBC; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 13:52:21 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2295 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: What is savest? Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 13:50:10 +0100 Zenon wrote: (But the message is to all) >> ;) Ah but that one would be impossible, or at least an order or two >> magnitude more expensive. >> >?? As follows from all our discussions, >the biggest problem is the propulsion. >And the one-way mission has only HALF of this problem. >So you calim that having half the problem makes >it impossible or more expensive? > >I agree that the one-way outpost-building mission >will need more supplies (including a sort of factory >to build even more at the target), but I think >this additional cost will be negligible as compared with >the cost of engine/fuel needed for the way back. >The engine for a two-way mission must be made reliable >for twice the time and for two start-cruise-stop cycles. It is almost a fact that every two-way mission needs to get its fuel for the return-trip from the target system. That is, if you want to decrease cost (and thus effort). If a design allows to do without resources from the target system, it means that fuel supplies square, which usually makes bad numbers worst. However most of our designs can't do without resources from the target system anyway, so we have to face that we'll need some form of industry at the target system. This does not necessarily mean that we need complete rocket building factories, but instead specialized fuel or other bulk ore collectors. The question is how much effort would a one-way mission save? It likely does need less bulk resources, but more specialized resources. There's a big chance that both kinds of mission will cost as much. There is however a big advantage of staying in the target system, rather than "floating" through space another 10 year. In the target system you have all the resources you want (including energy), but in space you've nothing. Also in the target system you won't need your most critical (and likely most deteriorating) part of the ship: The engines. Kelly continously tells us, that to stay at the target system we need to be selfsufficient. But don't we need to be selfsufficient if we stay from home 20 years (which is the minimum time for a two-way mission)? In short, I'm not so much wondering what is cheaper, but more about what is saver. Or to put is less subjective: What has a bigger chance of succeeding? Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 04:51 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1160" "Tue" "9" "December" "1997" "13:50:15" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "28" "RE: starship-design: Why?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA20537 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 04:51:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA20530 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 04:51:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-006.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xfP9G-001Xc2C; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 13:52:26 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1159 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Why? Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 13:50:15 +0100 >On Monday, December 08, 1997 3:49 AM, Timothy van der Linden >[SMTP:TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl] wrote: > >> Curiosity. > >Kelly, wanted a reason why we would send repeat missions. I was simply >pointing out that if there was ANY reason to go in the first place, it >would certainly be enough reason to go again and again... Yes, unless what we discovered at the target failed our expectations badly. >I don't deny that it is possible we will go out of simple curiosity. I just >look at the cost and time involved and come up with the conclusion that the >ONLY reason we will go is curiosity. What I was alluding to is that there >is no sound economic basis for such a mission so profit as a motive is out. >It is to expensive for simple wanderlust (so much for Eric the Red), and I >find it implausible that ANY politician would seriously believe that the >days of empires and colonies aren't over. > >All in all, its a tough sell for anything other than "because its there". I fully agree with that. Although I'd like to be a visionary as Kyle writes, the fact is that we have a long way to go if we have to use current day technology. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 08:11 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2093" "Tue" "9" "December" "1997" "10:11:37" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "47" "starship-design: Re: debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA01481 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:11:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA01404 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:11:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA25004; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:11:38 -0600 Message-Id: <9712091611.AA25004@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <2cb8ab50.348ac7e4@aol.com> from "KellySt@aol.com" at Dec 7, 97 10:59:30 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2092 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: debate Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:11:37 -0600 (CST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 12/6/97 10:51:38 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>It's not just a question of scale. The emitter system has to roughly >>keep "flat", and it's inconceivably huge (the emitter for the >>deceleration leg must fire its beam over interstellar distances). >>If you can create that interstellar beam emitter system at all, >>the rest seems like child's play. >Thats why you need a phased array systems. That way its not important where >the individuale elements are. Just they they know exactly where they are >relative to one another. It actually is important where the individual elements are, to a significant extent, and that their relative speeds stay within certain bounds (depending on the tunability of the emitters which are limited by their lenses). Over the interplanetary distances the diameter of an interstellar beam emitter suggests, even the problem of localizing positions relative to each other is a challenge. >>It might go somewhere if you read my proof and dispute _it_, and not >>some mixture of your own fantasy and straw man. >>Honestly, it's better for you to dispute it with a logical argument >>than for you to simply dismiss it out of hand. >>Which is what you're doing if you don't even read it carefully. >I did read it, and responded to it with technical criticisms, and several >times mentioned parts that I could clearly interpret. Given the obvious >contradictions I'm eaither not following what your saying, or your idea seems >contradictory. Look. I've never written anything here with any contradictions, obvious or otherwise. You just have an incredible capacity to misread, misinterpret, and/or unjustifiably assume things. The most aggravating thing about trying to discuss anything with you is your inability to comprehend precisely what's written and the way you inject straw-men which aren't even hinted at. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 08:17 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2824" "Tue" "9" "December" "1997" "09:54:43" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "60" "Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA03914 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:17:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA03531 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:16:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA24467; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:54:43 -0600 Message-Id: <9712091554.AA24467@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <01BD0250.13FC8F40.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Dec 6, 97 02:00:03 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2823 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:54:43 -0600 (CST) L. Parker wrote: >Several months ago I made the statement that there is more incentive to >stay in space where power is cheap, resources are plentiful and >(comparatively) easy to get at. So I really have a hard time seeing why >anyone would want to go to another star just to _settle_ on a planet. Resources on a planet are much more plentiful than in space, and much easier to get at (for the inhabitants). Furthermore, building habitats on a planet is much simpler than in space, because you get radiation and space debris shielding for free. >If you bear that in mind, and look at the mission profile as one that is >designed to begin building an outpost in orbit in that system for the >purpose of continuing exploration and creating a spaceborne infrastructure >for follow on missions, only some of which might be concerned with actually >landing on a planet, then it is not a one way mission. Nor is it exactly a >colonization mission. IMO, this mission is still too ambitious for a first manned mission. A first manned mission cannot expect to get _any_ resources from the target system, because that first system will be the planetless Alpha Centauri system. I don't think an unmanned flyby probe would be able to find usable resources even if they were there to be found (because it would lack the human creativity to recognize and scientificaly interpret something unexpected). With the 8 year two-way time delays, I don't think an unmanned 1-way probe would work out either. If there are resources to be exploited, then a 1-way manned mission is the way to find it. >It is a team of scientists, and engineers and technicians with a definite >purpose - build a fully self sustaining outpost in orbit around another >star. Once they have done that they can then build power stations to >produce more fuel so that 2-way travel becomes more practicable. I think that we can send them there with the hope that they'll find something they can turn into something useful, but trying to build power stations from the hydrogen and helium of Alpha Centauran solar winds is trying to squeeze water out of graphite. Our best hope would be if their Oort clouds had useful substances and/or there are unexpected useful planetoids. I don't think we'd be able to get more than a cursory glance at these things before going there ourselves, though. >There would be additional personnel arriving on follow on missions >and maybe eventually some of the original personnel might even get >to go home. This, I imagine, would largely depend on what human lifespans were like when the first manned mission was performed. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 08:19 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1301" "Tue" "9" "December" "1997" "09:38:21" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "30" "starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA04414 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:19:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA04101 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:18:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA23895; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:38:22 -0600 Message-Id: <9712091538.AA23895@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <01BD0250.105224E0.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Dec 6, 97 01:32:52 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1300 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net (L. Parker) Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:38:21 -0600 (CST) L. Parker wrote: >On Saturday, December 06, 1997 10:31 AM, Isaac Kuo >[SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: >> My personal favorite is a modified MagOrion, where a track of nuclear >> bombs are used to accelerate a large superconducting magsail. The >> bombs are detonated far from the magsail so that the exposure to >> hard radiation is minimized and the push from the fraction of ions >> which "hit" the sail is spread out. >You really ought to check out Penn State's page on ICAN and the antimatter >catalyzed fission/fusion rocket. It is basically a modified Orion concept >that is much more refined than the original. Besides the fact that the >hardware is already being tested, it offers a lot more in near term >improvement potential. While very promising, I don't like to trust the results of any one research group no matter how prestigious. >I haven't even used any hardware here that isn't already in existence or >made any assumptions that are really weird. I personally expect positive results, but would not count on any projected numbers until a full scale thruster was built and tested. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 08:47 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2449" "Tue" "9" "December" "1997" "17:46:07" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "49" "Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA14815 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:47:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA14676 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:46:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id RAA02162; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 17:46:07 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199712091646.RAA02162@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2448 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 17:46:07 +0100 (MET) > From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) > > It is almost a fact that every two-way mission needs to get its fuel for > the return-trip from the target system. That is, if you want to decrease > cost (and thus effort). > If a design allows to do without resources from the target system, it means > that fuel supplies square, which usually makes bad numbers worst. > However most of our designs can't do without resources from the target > system anyway, so we have to face that we'll need some form of industry at > the target system. This does not necessarily mean that we need complete > rocket building factories, but instead specialized fuel or other bulk ore > collectors. > > The question is how much effort would a one-way mission save? It likely > does need less bulk resources, but more specialized resources. There's > a big chance that both kinds of mission will cost as much. > > There is however a big advantage of staying in the target system, rather > than "floating" through space another 10 year. In the target system you > have all the resources you want (including energy), but in space you've > nothing. Also in the target system you won't need your most critical > (and likely most deteriorating) part of the ship: The engines. > Kelly continously tells us, that to stay at the target system we need to be > selfsufficient. But don't we need to be selfsufficient if we stay from home > 20 years (which is the minimum time for a two-way mission)? > > In short, I'm not so much wondering what is cheaper, but more about what is > saver. Or to put is less subjective: What has a bigger chance > of succeeding? > Yes, I do agree with the above. My talking about costs has been prompted mostly by Kelly's latest arguments concerning costs. In one of the previous periods of this one-way discussion, I used mostly just the safety argument - in my opinion strongly in favor for the one-way mission (provided the target system has enough accessible resources). Generally, though, I am not some single-minded enthusiast of just the one-way missions. I want only to consider this mission type as one of the viable options to discuss calmly its pros and cons. What prompted my sometimes heated argument with Kelly on this issue was Kelly's constant labelling of one-way missions as "suicide" missions (which I think is simply wrong) and dismissing them as outright unacceptable on this ground. -- Zenon From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 08:56 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7898" "Tue" "9" "December" "1997" "10:56:34" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "178" "starship-design: Re: debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA19183 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:56:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA19109 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:56:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA26709; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:56:35 -0600 Message-Id: <9712091656.AA26709@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: from "KellySt@aol.com" at Dec 7, 97 10:59:36 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 7897 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: debate Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:56:34 -0600 (CST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 12/6/97 12:05:58 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>>>For instance, any design which requires fusion power other than from >>>>H-bombs is speculation. >>So far, every fusion reactor ever built requires more energy to >>start/maintain fusion than it returns. If you've got something >>to the contrary, I would very much appreciate a reference. >? We have had several fusion systems where more energy was taped >out from the reaction then took to start it, thou the inefficency >of the systems was too great to get positive payback from the >whole system (my favority being the comercial laser fusion tests >in the '80's). Please, name one. Just one, at least. >If the systems used better >systems or were scaled up, they would have been able to produce power. And a >few years ago the DOE annouced one of their systems had reached and exceeded >breakeven. Which one? >>>Beyond that plannig on such systems in the next 50 years is highly >>>conservative even by the standrads of commercial investors. >>Commercial investors take amazing risks all the time. They need to >>do so in order to make their overall profits. That is the nature >>of investment. Given the current profitability of the stock market >>compared to bonds, I would have thought that obvious. >Commercial investors never take amazing risks. Their entire focus >is to avoid amazing risks. Untrue. They regularly invest large sums of money on speculations which may fail, and when it's other people's money it can make big news when the bet fails. The larger the sums of money, the more risk investors take. On one end of the spectrum are personal savings, which require a low risk strategy in order to save up retirement funds safely. On the other end of the spectrum is Bill Gates, who has so much money to spare that he can afford to risk most of his eggs in one basket--his own company--because it is the most profitable place to put it. There's maybe a 5% chance that a some "disaster" will cripple Microsoft stock--that's too much of a risk for anyone to put their entire retirement savings into Microsoft stock alone, but Bill Gates can afford to put the vast majority of his money in Microsoft stock because even in the worst case what remains is plenty. >>>>Something _might_ be discovered in the next millenia which will lead >>>>to fantastic increases in space propulsion beyond the theoretical >>>>anti-matter rocket. If so, I'll bet it won't look anything like >>>>anything we've imagined. >>>We only figured out mass conversion and fission theories in the last hundred >>>years. Expecting we woun't find a few such stagering things in the next >>>hundred is really better against the odds and history. >>So what? >So your comment that "Something _might_ be discovered in the next millenia >which will lead to fantastic increases in space propulsion..." is >statistacally far to conservative. No, I don't think so. Sure, something will lead to fantastic increases in space propulsion compared to TODAY's technology. But look carefully at what I say. I say, "Something _might_ be discovered ... which will lead to fantastic increases ... beyond the theoretical anti-matter rocket." Beyond the theoretical anti-matter rocket. I have great confidence that for interstellar travel something on the level of a theoretical anti-matter rocket or less will remain the best we can hope for in the next millenia. The physics of relativity and conservation of energy strongly suggest this. >>>>You were looking to avoid a mere 160,000-1 fuel ratio? In favor >>>>of a 400-1 fuel ratio? Just how lightweight did you think the >>>>microwave satellites were going to be? Show me numbers. Power-weight >>>>ratios. Desired output thrust. I'll bet that given any reasonable >>>>numbers, you'll find that the mass of the microwave emitter satellites >>>>will end up weighing more than 400 times the sailship. >>>Don't care about the weight of the sats since we don't need to carry them. >>But you _do_ have to build them. That's going to cost--and by my >>estimate cost a hell of a lot more than the fuel you're "saving". >>I make that estimate using mass comparisons, because it's hard to >>say what the actual monetary costs may be in the future. I make >>the assumption that at any given time, the cost of a ton of fusion >>rocket fuel will be less than the cost of a ton of beam emitter >>array. >Mass comparisons are rather irrelavent. The cost of an ore, vrs a >manufactured systems vary wildly, and are not liniarly related to mass. Yes, they vary wildly--but in all cases the cost of the manufactured system is more than the cost of the raw materials used to manufacture it. This should be obvious. The costs of various raw materials may differ, but fusion rocket fuel (Deuterium and possibly Hydrogen; D-D fusion is trivial if we have Li6-H fusion) will very likely always costs less than the metals/composites used to manufacture beam satellites. >>The only saving grace of the laser sail vs. increased fuel would be >>that the beam emitters may already be built and/or they may be reused. >>For a first interstellar mission (which is what we should be discussing, >>since it's so hard already), it's unlikely they would already be >>built. There's no way to justify the expense of making them such >>long range other than being meant for an interstellar mission. >Which is another advatage of a dispered phased array system that could be >adapted to longer range without significant modification. (Even thou the >efficence would decline.) Huh? Advantage over what? A dispersed phased array system can't be adapted to longer range without significant modification. What _can_ be done is to increase it's efficiency by bunching it up together as tightly as possible, ideally shoulder-to-shoulder. The only thing you gain by dispersing them over a wide area is... you don't gain anything, actually. At every range, the beam produced by the tightly bunched up array is superior to the beam produced by the widely dispersed array. >>The possible reuse of the lasers is particularly notable if it is >>reused in a single mission (e.g. sequencially launching multiple >>modules which provide deceleration fuel). >>However, the possible reuse of lasers for marketable power generation >>is, IMO, dubious. First, there has to be a market for that amount >>of power. >Presumably for large scale industrial operations in space, such as non near >earth asteropid work and transport. But agreed, this is speculative. The only serious use for them I can imagine is for laser powered rocket transport. Assuming nuclear reactors remain expensive and/or fission materials remain restricted, laser powered rockets offer great potential savings in rocket costs. For any sort of heavy industrial work where it's worth putting a high power refinery on site, it's also worth putting its power source on site. Beamed power really only offers a potential advantage in cases where the power is only needed a small fraction of the time (which is the case for rockets). >>Second, the introduction of that much extra power generation >>into the market will devalue itself. >Quit likely. >>Third, in this example we >>assume fusion power is available for the deceleration leg. If that's >>the case, then who's going to bother buying beam power? >I can't follow this bit. The affordability of the powerful deceleration leg fusion rocket (that we can afford it at all) suggests we have similar fusion power generation capability which is relatively affordable. Given the plentiful inexpensive energy everywhere, who's going to need beam power? -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 09:40 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1296" "Tue" "9" "December" "1997" "11:24:49" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "31" "starship-design: RE: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA10644 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:40:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA10633 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:40:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p46.gnt.com [204.49.68.251]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA08400; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:39:58 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:39:51 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD0497.296FAF80.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1295 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: RE: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:24:49 -0600 On Tuesday, December 09, 1997 9:38 AM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > While very promising, I don't like to trust the results of any one > research group no matter how prestigious. > > I personally expect positive results, but would not count on any > projected numbers until a full scale thruster was built and tested. The main reason I like it is it isn't exotic, unknown technology. It is a lot more likely that we can go from a test bed (current status) to production technology in ten years than some of the weird ideas we typically discuss. There are several other possibilities out there (such as dense plasma thrusters), some with higher ISPs, but lower overall thrust. If they can be scaled up to provide more thrust, then they may be possible as well. Overall, I am skeptical of our ability to make the fifty year timeline but maybe seventy five or one hundred years. Unless of course someone comes up with a breakthrough... Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- PLEASE NOTE: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That When the Consumer Is Not Directly Observing This Product, It May Cease to Exist or Will Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 09:42 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2542" "Tue" "9" "December" "1997" "11:38:40" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "57" "RE: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA11600 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:42:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA11592 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:42:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p46.gnt.com [204.49.68.251]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA08440; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:40:05 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:40:00 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD0497.2E92FE40.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2541 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:38:40 -0600 On Tuesday, December 09, 1997 9:55 AM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > Resources on a planet are much more plentiful than in space, and > much easier to get at (for the inhabitants). Furthermore, building > habitats on a planet is much simpler than in space, because you get > radiation and space debris shielding for free. Yes, planets have more total resources perhaps, but typically they are not as concentrated, and definitely harder to get at. Current concepts for orbital mining and manufacturing use the tailings to build shielding which is more than adequate for any conceivable circumstance short of a nova. As far as easy of construction, I will grant that we have very little experience with this right now, but fifty years from now it either won't be an issue or we won't be going, period. Or were you planning on building the ship on the ground? > > IMO, this mission is still too ambitious for a first manned mission. > A first manned mission cannot expect to get _any_ resources from the > target system, because that first system will be the planetless Alpha > Centauri system. Perhaps it is ambitious, but I think it is really the most likely way of doing a successful program. BTW, where did you by your telescope? I want one too. I didn't know there weren't ANY planets around Alpha Centauri. > I don't think an unmanned flyby probe would be able to find usable > resources even if they were there to be found (because it would > lack the human creativity to recognize and scientificaly interpret > something unexpected). With the 8 year two-way time delays, I > don't think an unmanned 1-way probe would work out either. Probably true. > If there are resources to be exploited, then a 1-way manned mission > is the way to find it. > > I think that we can send them there with the hope that they'll find > something they can turn into something useful, but trying to build > power stations from the hydrogen and helium of Alpha Centauran > solar winds is trying to squeeze water out of graphite. If we establish that there are no planets there, then obviously we wouldn't attempt this kind of mission. Then again, we probably wouldn't send ANY mission. Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- PLEASE NOTE: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That When the Consumer Is Not Directly Observing This Product, It May Cease to Exist or Will Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 10:05 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["9884" "Tue" "9" "December" "1997" "12:05:27" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "216" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA25298 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:05:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA25085 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:05:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA29649; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 12:05:27 -0600 Message-Id: <9712091805.AA29649@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <69c02e50.348ac800@aol.com> from "KellySt@aol.com" at Dec 7, 97 10:59:57 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 9883 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 12:05:27 -0600 (CST) KellySt@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 12/6/97 12:08:42 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>>>>>> I disagree. If I were offered the chance to fly on a 1 way mission >>>>>>> to the Alpha Centauri systems at .2c (where I'd then spend the rest >>>>>>> of my life), I for one would jump at it. I'm sure there are many >>>>>>> others who'd be just as excited to do so. >>>>It's not a suicide mission. Suicide is purposefully dying prematurely. >>>>With a couple hundred years of life support supplies, there's no >>>>inherent reason why the crew would die prematurely. >>>Actually even if you had a couple hundred years of suplies its unlikely the >>>ship could stay functional for more then a few decades. >>Even if that were the case, it's not _certain_ to fail. At least >>in American culture, this is a critical difference. It's why we >>were willing to enlist in 2 dozen bombing mission tours but never >>even considered Kamikaze missions. >It is statistically certain to fail. I.E. if you are asking a >systems to work longer then the average mean time to failure of >its parts, it will fail without the replacement of those parts. No it won't. The average mean time is an average. The part might fail before, or it might fail later. It could fail today. It could fail in a century. But there's no inherent reason why we would ask the systems to work longer than their average mean time to failure. We can bring spares to replace systems before they wear down dangerously. >If the parts are primary structure (remember we'll be shaving >weight margines to get the thing flying) you need major shipyard >facilities. I don't think we'll be shaving weight. Even at .2c, the thing has _got_ to last at least 20 years or the whole endeavor wasn't worth a damn. >>>Normal systems on that scale usually burn out after 40-50 years. >>>Given the lack of replacement parts (stored parts also don't last >>>forever), >>They don't have to last forever. They just have to last several >>decades. >Many can't last a few years on the shelf. Like what? The mission critical systems are: 1. The deceleration rocket systems. These have to last 2 decades and there's little margin for spares. However, after that they are no longer mission critical. 2. Oxygen recycling and CO2 scrubbers. At least with current technology, they have a limited expected life span, but they are relatively lightwieght so many spares can be carried. I'm not sure about their shelf life. 3. Water recycling. I'm not sure about this part. 4. Food storage. Irradiated canned food will easily last a couple hundred years. 5. Spare parts to repair hull problems. Aluminum nuts, bolts, welding solder, and wrenches in vacuum storage practically last forever. Arc welders also last practically forever since they're relatively simple devices easy to repair. 6. Spare solar panels and electrical components. Last prctically forever in storage. Really, the only mission critical items which I can see having a problem with storage life are the recycling systems, which might require somewhat chemically active components. >>Why would the crew be wearing out? We'd be getting old after a >>while, but at that point it would be getting less and less >>important to have the equipment last much longer. >It has to keep working for the crew to keep living. If it >needs repair NOW, you can't just hope it woun't fail for >a decade or two for the last crewman to die. It almost >certainly will fail in months to years. Why would it almost certainly fail in months or years? Exactly what mission critical components are certain to fail, even with triple redundancy? (If there's only one or two crew left, the life support systems will be well below capacity.) >>The life expectancy would indeed be greatly reduced compared to >>staying at home. Besides the lack of medical facilities, there's >>the issue of improvements in technology back at home. >>The worst case possibility is if someone develops a "fountain of youth >>pill", which can be manufactured on the ship. Then the crew would >>be guaranteed to die due to lack of supplies and/or ship failure. >>But none of this is _guaranteed_. So it's not a suicide mission. >Your sending people out to to a decade or two of work (at most until the >exploration gear become unservicable) and then sit in the deralic ship until >they die. Why would the exploration gear become unservicable so quickly? At the very least, we can expect handheld optical telescopes to last hundreds of years. Even that alone, at such a close range, is enough to do serious scientific observations impossible from the Solar System. (Even if we figured out a way to make astronomically huge optical telescopes able to equal their resolution, we could not make fine corona observations since we'd lack the ability to shade out the photosphere.) >Thats effectivly a suicide mission. I know a few folks in this group >disagree, or don't care, but it still would meen no government on earth could >get permision for such a mission. I.E. your throwing away a crew for no >critical reason. Specifically your doing it to save money, which is really >not going to sell. By your logic, life is a suicide mission. No matter what, you're going to die somewhere. Honestly, if I and others like me were sent on a _2_ way mission, We'd be more than halfway tempted to disobey orders and simply stay. That aside, the crew isn't thrown away. They're simply taking the "retirement plan" of their choice. Anyway, doing something to save money has long been a strong selling point. That's why Mars pathfinder is this tiny little cart which can't even send data up to orbit rather than the originally envisionned self-sufficient rovers bristling with sensors. It's why Magellan has only the rather limited radar rather than radar, IR, and optical, and it's why they trashed it into Venus's atmosphere when it could have continued operating it for years. >>>>As for 2-way vs. 1-way, I gave as an example a .2c cruise speed. >>>>A 2-way mission at .1c would take at least 80 years to get there >>>>and back! With current human lifespans, that sounds to me a >>>>hell of a lot worse than going one way in 20 years and then spending >>>>the next half century or so basking in the warmth of alien suns. >>>I don't follow the numbers. First you state a .2c cruse speed vs a .1. Why >>>would a 2 way mission use a slower ship? >>Because a 1 way mission can go at 1/2 delta-v of a rocket, while a >>2 way mission can only go at 1/4 delta-v. Alternatively, if beams >>are used for the acceleration run (and the deceleration run of the >>return journey), the 1 way mission can go at 100% delta-v, while >>the 2 way mission can only go at 50% delta-v. >The delta-v potential of a ship is related to the fuel mass ratios. The fuel >mass ratios are exponetial, not linear. I.E. a ship that needs to accelerate >and decelerat with onboard fuel (Li-6 fusion fuel) needs 400 times the fuel >load of one that just needs to accelerat or decelerate not both. Or for a 2 >way unrefueled mission it would need 400^3 as much fuel. I didn't say this was using Li-6 fusion fuel. In fact, I didn't specify the method at all. I did make the tacit assumption that whatever it was, .2c was pretty much it's practical limit for the 1 way mission. In other words, the 1 way mission at .2c needs a mass ratio so high that much higher isn't affordable. Let's say the mass ratio is 10,000. In this case, it's obviously ridiculous to talk about a 2 way mission at .2c (unrefueled). That would require a mass ratio of 100,000,000, and increase fuel costs by 10,000. Therefore, if we want to talk about a 2 way mission, we've got to keep the mass ratio about the same. It would have to be a .1c cruise velocity mission in order to keep the mass ratio about the same. >>Alpha Centauri includes a binary system. It would indeed take decades >>to study this system, which is very different from our own. Being >>on site means being able to rig up whatever equipment is needed to >>make whatever observations are desired (a 2 way mission could leave >>behind unmanned probes, but they'd have more limited capabilities and >>wouldn't be able to react to scientific advances prompting new >>observations as quickly). >Without tools? The systems will wear out and your light years from the >manufacturing infastructure needed to keep all the stuff working. As a wrough >guess I'ld expect the transport shuttles and such to burn out in under 20 >years, and the main ship sensors and systems to be maybe good for 40. Transport shuttles? What's the point? You'd want some unmanned probes so you can get data from multiple points without wasting months and fuel flitting around (e.g. an orbiting probe to measure magnetic fields at various distances). Most observations, however, could and would be made from the main ship directly. I'm not sure why you expect the ships sensors and systems to wear out after only 40 years. >Past >that your need to strip those systems for pars to regulate life support, >medical, etc.. Huh? Keeping the systems alive will be a matter of repairing them with spares. There's not much commonality between a CO2 scrubber and an IR camera. >I.E. you not talking about spending your life studing the starsystem. Most of >the time your just going to be working to keep the last of the ship (and >yourselves) alive. Most of the time spent on a manned spaceship, at least currently, is keeping yourself alive. That's a given. But really that's not so different from life here on Earth (especially if you're a farmer). -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 10:08 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["443" "Tue" "9" "December" "1997" "12:08:00" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "13" "Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA26433 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:08:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA26367 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:08:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA29767; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 12:08:01 -0600 Message-Id: <9712091808.AA29767@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <8e459726.348ac804@aol.com> from "Kelly St" at Dec 7, 97 11:00:01 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 442 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com Cc: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 12:08:00 -0600 (CST) Kelly St wrote: >Seariously a big question we've never gotten very far with is why anyone would >send such a mission? To study a novel star system. It would take decades of on site observations and research in order to seriously study Alpha Centauri. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 10:26 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2197" "Tue" "9" "December" "1997" "12:26:14" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "55" "Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA07302 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:26:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA07169 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:26:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA01242; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 12:26:14 -0600 Message-Id: <9712091826.AA01242@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <27c8f6b5.348c3e88@aol.com> from "Kelly St" at Dec 8, 97 01:35:34 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2196 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 12:26:14 -0600 (CST) Kelly St wrote: >In a message dated 12/8/97 9:19:56 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >>?? As follows from all our discussions, >>the biggest problem is the propulsion. >>And the one-way mission has only HALF of this problem. >>So you calim that having half the problem makes >>it impossible or more expensive? >?! A one way flight does not halve the propulsion problem. You're right. It makes the difference between a doable and an undoable problem, at least early on. If it only cost twice as much to do a 2 way mission, then I'd be all for it (I might not feel like coming back if I were going, though). However, with a choice between doing it and not doing it at all... >Frankly if you can get there and refuel, geting back is a >default ability of the ships. Yes, but refuelling is a very difficult problem, especially for a first manned interstellar mission. Really, the only way we're going to be able to figure out if there is even a practical resource to exploit for refueling is with a manned mission. It would be phenominally lucky if the first such mission had the capability to exploit that resource. >(Assuming you don't wear out the engines on route.) Thats one of the other >reason I wanted a plentiful fuel like Lithium. Deuterium would be more plentiful. >On the other hand if the ship has to keep functional for several more decades >(until the likely demise of the crew) the ship would need to be much bigger >and heavyier, and far more self suficent. These would make it, and the >mission more expensive. Compared to what? Compared to a mission which carried equipment suitable for refueling? That's some pretty heavy stuff, there, even if you had precise information about the resources you wanted to exploit. >No I strongly beleave a two way mission would be cheaper and simpler to launch >then a one way mission. (And politically much more viable.) Are you counting on refueling at the target system? Where do you propose getting fuel out of Alpha Centauri? -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 10:39 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2253" "Tue" "9" "December" "1997" "13:35:01" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "47" "RE: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA16483 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:39:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA16457 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:39:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 13:35:02 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 2252 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 13:35:01 -0500 > ---------- > From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu[SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] > >Without tools? The systems will wear out and your light years from > the > >manufacturing infastructure needed to keep all the stuff working. As > a wrough > >guess I'ld expect the transport shuttles and such to burn out in > under 20 > >years, and the main ship sensors and systems to be maybe good for 40. > > Transport shuttles? What's the point? You'd want some unmanned > probes so you can get data from multiple points without wasting > months and fuel flitting around (e.g. an orbiting probe to measure > magnetic fields at various distances). > > Most observations, however, could and would be made from the main > ship directly. I'm not sure why you expect the ships sensors and > systems to wear out after only 40 years. > I'd have to say if you wanted manned vehicles to land on planets, you'd have problems after a while - these can be delicate systems undergoing enormous stress and requiring lots of maintenance (after all, look at the space shuttle). If you are content to observe the planets from orbit, but still need several vehicles (i.e. to split up into smaller teams exploring the system), then you have less of a problem - space-only in-system vehicles are likely to undergo much less stress, be much simpler in design, and require much less maintenance. Same deal with unmanned probes - Voyager's a lot cheaper and simpler if you launch it from orbit. I would agree, though, that in general there is liable to be a great deal more maintenance than we realize (in any rate, one should be prepared for it) - but I don't see how that has to be a limiting factor. I think it would be possible to have a design modular enough that repairs are not nearly as complex as they are today (i.e. refurbishing a space shuttle) - the problem would be creating the spares, but I think that if anything, the next 50 years will bring great advances in manufacturing automation and size. ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 10:42 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["870" "Tue" "9" "December" "1997" "13:37:55" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "20" "RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA18175 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:42:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA18112 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:42:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 13:37:55 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 869 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 13:37:55 -0500 > ---------- > From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu[SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] > Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) > a first manned interstellar mission. Really, the only way we're > going to be able to figure out if there is even a practical > resource to exploit for refueling is with a manned mission. > It would be phenominally lucky if the first such mission had > the capability to exploit that resource. > I think this is an open issue. Depending on the proximity of the target, it MAY be possible to remotely make some of these kinds of determinations in the next 50 years. ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 11:17 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["943" "Tue" "9" "December" "1997" "13:15:17" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "25" "Re: starship-design: Re: debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA09533 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:17:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA09408 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:17:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA04001; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 13:15:18 -0600 Message-Id: <9712091915.AA04001@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <01BD041A.E88F2D00.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Dec 8, 97 08:44:47 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 942 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net Cc: wharton@physics.ucla.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: debate Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 13:15:17 -0600 (CST) L. Parker wrote: >Perhaps there is some confusion in semantics here. >We have built plenty of fusion devices that surpass breakeven - just not >devices that are viable as commercial powerplants. We aren't necessarily >looking for a powerplant design, we are looking for a propulsion design. By >default that includes a lot of the devices (such as bombs) that have >surpassed breakeven. >The antimatter catalyzed concept is just that, an Orion concept with >extremely small fusion bombs. I was saying we don't have "fusion power" and that any interstellar mission design requiring fusion other than H-bombs was speculation. I'm extremely positive about MagOrion type concepts. I'm extremely doubtful about lithium 6 - hydrogen fusion reactors. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 13:48 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["742" "Tue" "9" "December" "1997" "13:48:20" "-0800" "Ken Wharton" "wharton@physics.ucla.edu" nil "20" "starship-design: RE: debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA16693 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 13:48:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from physics.ucla.edu (physics.ucla.edu [128.97.23.13]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA16682 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 13:48:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from watt by physics.ucla.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA27733; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 13:48:20 -0800 Received: by watt (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA26235; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 13:48:20 -0800 Message-Id: <199712092148.NAA26235@watt> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 741 From: wharton@physics.ucla.edu (Ken Wharton) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: RE: debate Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 13:48:20 -0800 Lee writes: >Perhaps there is some confusion in semantics here. Ah yes. I was referring to Confined fusion devices. H-bombs have surpassed break-even but are not confined. No (manmade) confined fusion reaction has ever produced more energy than it took to create in the first place. >The antimatter catalyzed concept is just that, an Orion concept with >extremely small fusion bombs. The key difference, though, is that the "small fusion bombs" aren't bombs at all (well, not really...) They're Confined fusion reactions, and would (theoretically) allow much more efficienct engines than any concept that had to rely on unconfined fusion explosions. An important distinction, I think, between different propulsion mechanisms. Ken From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 15:38 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["921" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "00:37:12" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "21" "Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA23557 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 15:38:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA23521 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 15:37:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-015.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xfZFO-001VyhC; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 00:39:26 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 920 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 00:37:12 +0100 In reply to Zenon: >Generally, though, I am not some single-minded enthusiast >of just the one-way missions. I want only to consider >this mission type as one of the viable options to discuss >calmly its pros and cons. What prompted my sometimes >heated argument with Kelly on this issue was Kelly's >constant labelling of one-way missions as "suicide" missions >(which I think is simply wrong) and dismissing them >as outright unacceptable on this ground. I'd also not call it suicide, but I could imagine that the last years of ones life would not be as comfortable as they would be on Earth. Certainly not for those that survive the mayority of the crew. Anyhow, this discussion is probably very close to the Earthly discussion about euthanasia. Clearly there isn't a general concensus about that topic, so it's no wonder that the discussion about one-way missions becomes a bit heated every now and then. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 17:45 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1713" "Tue" "9" "December" "1997" "19:43:52" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "37" "starship-design: Re: The Great Debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA05760 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 17:45:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA05729 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 17:45:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p1.gnt.com [204.49.68.206]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA19578 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 19:45:24 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 19:45:04 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD04DA.F20F1BE0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1712 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Re: The Great Debate Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 19:43:52 -0600 On Tuesday, December 09, 1997 10:57 AM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > > The affordability of the powerful deceleration leg fusion rocket > (that we can afford it at all) suggests we have similar fusion > power generation capability which is relatively affordable. > Given the plentiful inexpensive energy everywhere, who's going > to need beam power? I don't really care which you use, but there is a small flaw in both of your reasoning here. The FUEL for the fusion rocket (or power plant) comes from somewhere, which requires energy to extract. In the case of an antimatter rocket, we have proposed building orbital power satellites to power giant cyclotrons (or whatever better device we come up with) for the sole purpose of manufacturing antimatter so that we can use it to produce fuel. The energy always has to come from somewhere, in this case, solar radiation -> antimatter -> nuclear radiation. What isn't clear here is that EVERY step is inefficient to greater or le sser degree. These inefficiencies will govern which one is most economical which will be one of the factors we have to consider. One of Isaac's arguments is the inefficiency of the beamed power concept over interstellar distances, and he is right. But within the immediate area of the Sun it is very efficient and far cheaper than standard fission/fusion. So for local power, Kelly is right (sort of) and for interstellar propulsion, Isaac is right (sort of). Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- "I share no man's opinions; I have my own." -Ivan Sergeyevich Turgenev, Fathers and Sons, 1862 From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 19:48 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1210" "Tue" "9" "December" "1997" "20:58:38" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "30" "RE: starship-design: RE: debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA23863 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 19:48:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA23839 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 19:48:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p4.gnt.com [204.49.68.209]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA01355; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 21:48:12 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 21:48:07 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD04EC.22C0DE20.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1209 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Ken Wharton'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: RE: debate Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 20:58:38 -0600 On Tuesday, December 09, 1997 3:48 PM, Ken Wharton [SMTP:wharton@physics.ucla.edu] wrote: > The key difference, though, is that the "small fusion bombs" aren't bombs > at all (well, not really...) They're Confined fusion reactions, and > would > (theoretically) allow much more efficienct engines than any concept that > had to rely on unconfined fusion explosions. An important distinction, I > think, between different propulsion mechanisms. Umm, well, yes and no. If you define a confined reaction as one that exists more or less continuously in one place, they aren't. They implode, react, and die. Then another micropellet takes the first one's place and it begins again. Byt this light it is a bomb. But then we do this several times a second so that there is a seemingly continuous reaction, so its sort of a confined reaction... Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- Atom n. Smallest bit of matter that can still be subdivided, ad infinitum. Byte n. Word comprehensible only to a computer. Data n.pl. Numbers that sink theories. Serendipity n. Crucial element of the scientific method. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 19:48 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7400" "Tue" "9" "December" "1997" "21:44:42" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "171" "starship-design: Re: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA24005 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 19:48:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA23995 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 19:48:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p4.gnt.com [204.49.68.209]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA01368; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 21:48:20 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 21:48:13 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD04EC.25EE2940.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 7399 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Re: One way (again...) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 21:44:42 -0600 On Tuesday, December 09, 1997 12:05 PM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > >It is statistically certain to fail. I.E. if you are asking a > >systems to work longer then the average mean time to failure of > >its parts, it will fail without the replacement of those parts. > Kelly's right it is certain. > No it won't. The average mean time is an average. The part might > fail before, or it might fail later. It could fail today. It > could fail in a century. Which is beside the point. Typical modern MTBFs are pitiful compared to what the mission will require. And you are thinking MTBF of the PART, the system as a whole is LESS than the lifetime of the weakest part. > But there's no inherent reason why we would ask the systems to > work longer than their average mean time to failure. We can > bring spares to replace systems before they wear down dangerously. No, you can't. You would have to bring the equivalent of four or five whole ships worth of spare parts. > >If the parts are primary structure (remember we'll be shaving > >weight margines to get the thing flying) you need major shipyard > >facilities. > > I don't think we'll be shaving weight. Even at .2c, the > thing has _got_ to last at least 20 years or the whole endeavor > wasn't worth a damn. Which is exactly the point. We have NEVER built any mechanism that was designed to function flawlessly for twenty years without ongoing maintenance. Historical evidence would tend to argue that we can't. > >>>Normal systems on that scale usually burn out after 40-50 years. > >>>Given the lack of replacement parts (stored parts also don't last > >>>forever), > > >>They don't have to last forever. They just have to last several > >>decades. The Air Force places a red tag shelf life on safety harness webbing at five years. This means if it sits on a shelf for five years, the inspector must physically destroy the webbing rather than chance its being used accidentally. > > >Many can't last a few years on the shelf. > > Like what? The mission critical systems are: > > 1. The deceleration rocket systems. These have to last 2 decades > and there's little margin for spares. However, after that > they are no longer mission critical. Current maximum operational lifetime: 50 hours continuous use, shelf life: none. > 2. Oxygen recycling and CO2 scrubbers. At least with current > technology, they have a limited expected life span, but > they are relatively lightwieght so many spares can be > carried. I'm not sure about their shelf life. Current maximum operational lifetime: 2 years continuous use, shelf life: none. > 3. Water recycling. I'm not sure about this part. Current maximum operational lifetime: 2 years continuous use, shelf life: none. > 4. Food storage. Irradiated canned food will easily last a couple > hundred years. > > 5. Spare parts to repair hull problems. Aluminum nuts, bolts, > welding solder, and wrenches in vacuum storage practically last > forever. Arc welders also last practically forever since they're > relatively simple devices easy to repair. Do YOU know how to repair one? And just in case something happens to you, how about the guy in the next cubicle? > 6. Spare solar panels and electrical components. Last prctically > forever in storage. Only, solid state devices have any reasonable shelf life. Unfortunately, their operational life is so short that you will need a LOT of spares. > Really, the only mission critical items which I can see having > a problem with storage life are the recycling systems, which > might require somewhat chemically active components. > > >>Why would the crew be wearing out? We'd be getting old after a > >>while, but at that point it would be getting less and less > >>important to have the equipment last much longer. > > >It has to keep working for the crew to keep living. If it > >needs repair NOW, you can't just hope it woun't fail for > >a decade or two for the last crewman to die. It almost > >certainly will fail in months to years. > > Why would it almost certainly fail in months or years? Exactly > what mission critical components are certain to fail, even with > triple redundancy? (If there's only one or two crew left, > the life support systems will be well below capacity.) I already posted a long list of relatively simple, everyday items that must be included on the ship, ALL of which will fail within five years. Here is a real good question for you: if you fill an air tank with compressed air to 3,000 psi and put it on a shelf then come back five years later, how much air is in the tank? Answer: 14 psi. We can't even build a non-moving air tank that will hold air with no pressure loss for five years. How are you going to keep it in the ship? > Why would the exploration gear become unservicable so quickly? > At the very least, we can expect handheld optical telescopes > to last hundreds of years. Even that alone, at such a close > range, is enough to do serious scientific observations impossible > from the Solar System. (Even if we figured out a way to make > astronomically huge optical telescopes able to equal their > resolution, we could not make fine corona observations since > we'd lack the ability to shade out the photosphere.) Isaac, would you give up your computer for a pen, paper and slide rule? Do you even know how to use one? > >Past > >that your need to strip those systems for pars to regulate life support, > >medical, etc.. > > Huh? Keeping the systems alive will be a matter of repairing them > with spares. There's not much commonality between a CO2 scrubber > and an IR camera. Forget the spares, there aren't going to be any. Do the mass calculations before you bring this one up again. Figure the individual failure rates of each part and the aggregate failure rates of each subsystem and system. Compute average life expectancy for each system, add sufficient spare parts to replace EVERY part in the system as many times as necessary to get there (we won't even bother with getting back for this argument). Then total up the additional mass and recompute fuel requirements. > >I.E. you not talking about spending your life studing the starsystem. > > Most of > >the time your just going to be working to keep the last of the ship (and > >yourselves) alive. Not necessarily. What it will take isn't parts, but self repair ability. It is feasible to take a limited supply of the basic components and raw materials required to manufacture the parts enroute. Example: the U.S. Navy does this routinely. > > Most of the time spent on a manned spaceship, at least currently, is > keeping yourself alive. That's a given. But really that's not so > different from life here on Earth (especially if you're a farmer). Until Mir began wearing out this simply wasn't true. Which is a great example and case in point. Even with routine resupply, it is already almost dead. Creeping advanced senility. Which is precisely what Kelly is saying. Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- PLEASE NOTE: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That When the Consumer Is Not Directly Observing This Product, It May Cease to Exist or Will Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 22:54 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3828" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "01:53:37" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "86" "Re: RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA25412 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:54:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.170]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA25400 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:54:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3827 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 01:53:37 EST In a message dated 12/8/97 1:34:50 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net wrote: >>>Several months ago I made the statement that there is more incentive to >>>stay in space where power is cheap, resources are plentiful and >>>(comparatively) easy to get at. So I really have a hard time seeing why >>>anyone would want to go to another star just to _settle_ on a planet. >>> >>>If you bear that in mind, and look at the mission profile as one that is >>>designed to begin building an outpost in orbit in that system for the >>>purpose of continuing exploration and creating a spaceborne infrastructure >>>for follow on missions, only some of which might be concerned with actually >>>landing on a planet, then it is not a one way mission. Nor is it exactly a >>>colonization mission. >>> >>>It is a team of scientists, and engineers and technicians with a definite >>>purpose - build a fully self sustaining outpost in orbit around another >>>star. Once they have done that they can then build power stations to >>>produce more fuel so that 2-way travel becomes more practicable. There >>>would be additional personnel arriving on follow on missions and maybe >>>eventually some of the original personnel might even get to go home. >>> >>>Remember that most of the people who will be going on these missions will >>>probably have come from our off-planet population in the first place. They >>>aren't going to see a great deal of difference between a colony on Luna or >>>Ceres and one orbiting another star. >>> >>>Lee >> >>That is an interesting mission profile, but has two problems. >> >>One it assumes your sure you want to keeping going back to that star systems >>on a regular basis. So far I never heard any credible reason we'ld want to. >> >>Two - your sure you want to keep using that system for decades. >> >>Three - it assumes you want to come back and forth so often that you'ld pay to >>send a much (10-100 times?) bigger construction expidition, and not just a >>couple exploration expiditions. >> >>First you send Lewis and Clark, then the pioneers, then the rail roads. ;) >> >>Seariously a big question we've never gotten very far with is why anyone would >>send such a mission? > >Because we are human. It is a driving motive in our lives, the need to explore, >to reach out. I for one would volunteer to go on a one way mission. I don't like >the condition of our planet anymore. Sice E-mail is so bad in its conveiance of >feelings, perhaps I should explain my next statement: The visionaries of our world >are nearly gone. What I mean by this is the ones that saw true worth in our exploration >and expansion, those such as Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, and the like are all dying. >The sad thing is, there seem to be few if any new visionaries like them. I, being >a teenager, spend considerable time with other teenagers, and can tell you that >the vision is gone. Arthur C. Clarke and Rober Bussard won't be around forever. >I just wonder where the human in humanity has gone. > >Forgive me if this is too 'wordy'. > >Kyle Mcallister Thats why we would be interested in sending a mission and exploring, but it doesn't answer why we would, in 50 years, spend hundreds (or at the very least tens) of billions of dollars to send a mission like this. We don't spend that kind of money for science or curiosity. Eventually, as the cost comes down, it could drop to leavel that we do spend for such reasons. But our ideas are priced way out of market for such things. So, why would someone pay that much to send a mission like this? Historicaly national prestigue, or other major political reasons, could fund a single expidition. (and possibly once you've paid for the equipment a couple other flights to other stars might be fundable.) But beyond that credible reasons are near nil. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 22:54 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["663" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "01:53:40" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "21" "Re: RE: starship-design: Re: debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA25434 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:54:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.172]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA25423 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:54:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <45f85ec4.348e3c78@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 662 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Re: debate Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 01:53:40 EST In a message dated 12/8/97 9:39:50 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Perhaps there is some confusion in semantics here. > >We have built plenty of fusion devices that surpass breakeven - just not >devices that are viable as commercial powerplants. We aren't necessarily >looking for a powerplant design, we are looking for a propulsion design. By >default that includes a lot of the devices (such as bombs) that have >surpassed breakeven. > >The antimatter catalyzed concept is just that, an Orion concept with >extremely small fusion bombs. > >Lee Good point. A fusion drive is at base a very leaky fusion reactor, leaking in one direction. ;) Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 22:55 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5652" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "01:53:55" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "143" "Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA25644 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:55:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.169]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA25636 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:55:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 5651 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 01:53:55 EST In a message dated 12/8/97 3:24:52 PM, you wrote: >From: Kelly St >> >> In a message dated 12/7/97 7:47:18 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >> >> >> First you send Lewis and Clark, then the pioneers, then the rail roads. >> >> ;) >> > >> >I will grant that is the way it was done in the past but this isn't >> >comparable. The FACTORY has to go first to build the railroad so that >> >Lewis and Clark can go... >> >> Then don't go by train. Most of our systems could get their once and back >> easier and cheaper then going their and seting up infastructure. >> >That is debatable. > >My opinion is that it would be cheaper to go one-way to establish >infrastructure (as I have written before the biggest problem as for now >is the propulsion - certainly going one-way halves this problem). I disagree strongly. A construction expidition or a long duration mission would need to be far better equiped, and far larger. Hence, both would be more expensive. >Especially in long run: two-way leaves practically nothing >over there to go back for; establishing an outpost - well, >establishes a target to return to (at least to help with new >supplies them struggling over there...). > >Remember Apollo - a plant-the-flag mission has little consequences >and does not lead to sustained exploration. >The Russian "Mir", being a true outpost in near-space >is since many years the only long-term space project - >one of its main effects being prevention of Russian space program >from a total collapse... >The two-way mission "just to show it is possible" will also make >a much less impact and consequence than the outpost-building. No, we would not go somewhere just to go to an outpost. In itself, an outpost isn't a goal or a reason for going somewhere. At best its a tool to allow you to do something there. At worst its a stunt. (Been there, done that, took our bows, and went home.) If your assuming a maned outpost, it would be a strong incentive to cancel the first mission. I.E. to prevent being forced to eather: send a retriaval expidition to bring them back, or to take the heat for leaving them to die for some Apollo like stunt. >And, Kelly, you seem to contradict yourself at the costs issue - >in another post you have written: > >> From: Kelly St >> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 10:59:57 EST >> [...] >> Thats effectivly a suicide mission. I know a few folks in this group >> disagree, or don't care, but it still would meen no government on earth >> could get permision for such a mission. >> I.E. your throwing away a crew for no critical reason. >> Specifically your doing it to save money, >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> which is really not going to sell. >> >I.e., you assume (and use it as an argument!) >that one-way will save money... Voila! I thought you had used that as an argument!? Why else would you not equip an expidition with a return capability? I thought your whole suggestion for this started as a suggestion to save money? With the systems were talking about, and about any others I can think of, a long duration mission would cost more then a shorter duration one. This is especially true if the expidition got long enough for te crew to get really old. So coming back would be shorter and cheaper. In any event politically it would always be perceaved as an expediant by the agency to save money >> >> Seariously a big question we've never gotten very far with is why >> >> anyone would send such a mission? >> > >> >See, above. I still haven't found a sound reason to send any mission. >> > >> >Lee >> >> Me neiather. >> >> Kelly >> >Yes, in short term, there isn't any. >But remember Sagan: >"All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct." Tese missions would in no way make us a more 'spacefaring civilization'. They would however require us to already be a very space faring civilization to launch them. >Of course, we must first settle our system to a significant >degree (at least to be able to built a HUGE starship >without hauling all that mass from Earth's gravity well). > > > >Thus, barring some great breakthrough like FTL, >I do not see any real possibility (if not technological, >then psycho-/econo-/political) to send a manned interstellar >mission within 50 years or so. > >Returning to Sagan, his prediction already seems to turn >the dangerous way - as Kyle has remarked: > >> From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" >> >> The visionaries of our world are nearly gone. What I mean by this is >> the ones that saw true worth in our exploration and expansion, >> those such as Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, and the like are all dying. >> The sad thing is, there seem to be few if any new visionaries >> like them. I, being a teenager, spend considerable >> time with other teenagers, and can tell you that the vision is gone. >> Arthur C. Clarke and Rober Bussard won't be around forever. >> I just wonder where the human in humanity has gone. >> >Without opening a real big frontier in space, the humanity will >decline even faster and earlier than we may expect. >The symptoms are already quite visible. > >-- Zenon I'm not sure what your talking about as symptoms, but their are plenty of other visionaries. Many working to build more realistic and grand visions. But they aren't as interesting to the public at the moment. Personally I think interest in space will perk up when space does do things. At the moments its effects have been quite underwelming given the levels of effort. A more productive space program, should gain more interest and approval. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 22:56 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1715" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "01:53:46" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "43" "Re: RE: starship-design: Why?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA25789 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:56:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.175]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA25782 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:56:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <2b088a1f.348e3c7c@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1714 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Why? Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 01:53:46 EST In a message dated 12/9/97 6:51:52 AM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >>On Monday, December 08, 1997 3:49 AM, Timothy van der Linden >>[SMTP:TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl] wrote: >> >>> Curiosity. >> >>Kelly, wanted a reason why we would send repeat missions. I was simply >>pointing out that if there was ANY reason to go in the first place, it >>would certainly be enough reason to go again and again... > >Yes, unless what we discovered at the target failed our expectations badly. That would depend on our interst in it. Our most likely reason is as a political stunt, or as a national/international chalenge. As Apollo learned, repeat missions serve no purpose to such an objective. Or if we were just generally curious but just wanted a basic survey, or we were only interest in looking for earth like worlds or life and found none. >>I don't deny that it is possible we will go out of simple curiosity. I just >>look at the cost and time involved and come up with the conclusion that the >>ONLY reason we will go is curiosity. What I was alluding to is that there >>is no sound economic basis for such a mission so profit as a motive is out. >>It is to expensive for simple wanderlust (so much for Eric the Red), and I >>find it implausible that ANY politician would seriously believe that the >>days of empires and colonies aren't over. >> >>All in all, its a tough sell for anything other than "because its there". > >I fully agree with that. Although I'd like to be a visionary as Kyle writes, >the fact is that we have a long way to go if we have to use current day >technology. > >Timothy And with current tech, it would be to expensive to interwst us in doing it for curiosity. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 22:56 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1276" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "01:53:43" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "33" "Re: RE: starship-design: RE: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA25832 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:56:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.174]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA25822 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:56:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <41097944.348e3c83@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1275 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: RE: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 01:53:43 EST In a message dated 12/9/97 1:16:50 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >On Monday, December 08, 1997 1:08 PM, Ken Wharton >[SMTP:wharton@physics.ucla.edu] wrote: > >> Are there any ideas out there as to how to transfer raw fusion energy to >> propellent more efficiently?? One possibility would be to use the fusion >> >> products themselves as propellant, but for this scheme that merely >> increases >> the amount of antimatter you need by three orders of magnitude; no easy >> feat >> when it's already more than we can make. I think someone calculated that >> >> the ideal propellant speed is about 0.1c. Has anyone looked into how to >> make this type of engine, assuming fusion is possible? > >There are some promising developments in magnetic nozzle design that might >be combined with this fusion concept to at least increase the ISP another >order of magnitude. As for the propellant, well, I didn't say the idea was >perfect...just possible. > >Lee !!!!!???? Woah! Lee you've been holding out on us! Please diecribe this Nozzel? If it would work on fusion products from the motors I'm talking about, a order of magnitude improvement would dramatically improve the systems! Probably droping fuel ratios by far more then an order of magnitude. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 23:04 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3025" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "01:54:02" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "65" "Re: starship-design: What is savest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA28573 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 23:04:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.172]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA28556 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 23:04:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <2fcc52c4.348e3c98@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3024 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: What is savest? Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 01:54:02 EST In a message dated 12/9/97 6:51:22 AM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >Zenon wrote: (But the message is to all) > >>> ;) Ah but that one would be impossible, or at least an order or two >>> magnitude more expensive. >>> >>?? As follows from all our discussions, >>the biggest problem is the propulsion. >>And the one-way mission has only HALF of this problem. >>So you calim that having half the problem makes >>it impossible or more expensive? >> >>I agree that the one-way outpost-building mission >>will need more supplies (including a sort of factory >>to build even more at the target), but I think >>this additional cost will be negligible as compared with >>the cost of engine/fuel needed for the way back. >>The engine for a two-way mission must be made reliable >>for twice the time and for two start-cruise-stop cycles. > >It is almost a fact that every two-way mission needs to get its fuel for the >return-trip from the target system. That is, if you want to decrease cost >(and thus effort). >If a design allows to do without resources from the target system, it means >that fuel supplies square, which usually makes bad numbers worst. >However most of our designs can't do without resources from the target >system anyway, so we have to face that we'll need some form of industry at >the target system. This does not necessarily mean that we need complete >rocket building factories, but instead specialized fuel or other bulk ore >collectors. > >The question is how much effort would a one-way mission save? It likely does >need less bulk resources, but more specialized resources. There's a big >chance that both kinds of mission will cost as much. > >There is however a big advantage of staying in the target system, rather >than "floating" through space another 10 year. In the target system you have >all the resources you want (including energy), but in space you've nothing. >Also in the target system you won't need your most critical (and likely most >deteriorating) part of the ship: The engines. >Kelly continously tells us, that to stay at the target system we need to be >selfsufficient. But don't we need to be selfsufficient if we stay from home >20 years (which is the minimum time for a two-way mission)? > > >In short, I'm not so much wondering what is cheaper, but more about what is >saver. Or to put is less subjective: What has a bigger chance of succeeding? > >Timothy Actually because staying in place requires you stay longer, and thus need more suplied, repairs, etc. I do think the 2-way would be cheaper, smaller, and more relyable. In our case the engines are actually not a big factor. You need the full set of engines to decel into the system, or you'ld overshoot. On a boost back, if some of the engines fail, you drop them and burn the others longer until you use up the rest of the fuel. You might want to drop them anyway to cut weight and increase your total speed a bit. (The decel burn into Sol doesn't use the ships engines in any of our systems. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 9 23:05 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2398" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "01:53:59" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "55" "Re: starship-design: Re: debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA28659 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 23:05:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.170]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA28645 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 23:05:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2397 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: wharton@physics.ucla.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: debate Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 01:53:59 EST In a message dated 12/8/97 3:34:34 PM, wharton@physics.ucla.edu wrote: > >Re: debate > >Kelly writes: > >>>>No we have had runing fusion reactions that produced more power then they >>>>took to run, and have other systms that could work efficently at those scales. >>> >>>Huh? Give me a hard reference! This would be very exciting news! >> >>Why? It hardly made the evening news at the time, and isn't that big of a >>milestone. Its not like they were comercially usable systems, or even >>adaptible to such things. Even if they were, they certainly wern't adaptable >>to commercial operation in our power grids at competative prices. Even the >>DOE is grdgingly admiting their tours fusion systems, even if capable of >>producing power competativly, could not be used in any power market now >>invisioned. > >I think you're referring to the recent JET results, which didn't reach the >break-even point... quite. They broke 50%, I think. Of course, you could >never make a workable power plant from a device that didn't reach fusion >ignition (a self-sustaining reaction), even if it does break even. No I remember a older anocement a couple of years ago, and one in the '80's from a comercial test system. >As for your statement about no fusion system ever being competitive, you're >forgetting that there will be another oil shock one day, and one other day >coal is going to be a lot more expensive than it is now. True, fusion may >never be cheaper than a fission breeder reactor, but it still may be >competitive if current sentiments about fission don't change. > >Ken The oil companies do expect practical fusion to really crater their market in 50 years or so, but since they've identofied at least 2 centuries of oil (assuming no market losses to other sources, and a continuation of world consuption growth rates), a future oil shock is not likely to help push the tech. Currently commercial analysis in this country is that fussion is possible given comercial development (for a decade or so) of identified designs (none of which are being research by our gov), but its not nessisary to meet any projected needs, and is virtually certain to insite the same political reaction as fission systems, most especially by ecology groups. Given this they figure they leave it on the shelf until the political climate changes, or some projected need is identified. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 02:22 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1038" "Mon" "8" "December" "1997" "13:36:51" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "29" "Re: starship-design: Why?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA15369 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 02:22:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo03.mx.aol.com (imo03.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.105]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA15306 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 02:22:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <61c65fb5.348c46ca@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1037 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Why? Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 13:36:51 EST In a message dated 12/8/97 3:50:58 AM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >>Seariously a big question we've never gotten very far with is why anyone would >>send such a mission? > >Curiosity. > >Some would say that future robotic (AI) probes may do all the exploring for >us. I'd not dare to despute that. However it's not merely listening to the >tales of others that make us tick. First hand, real time experience is for >many much more satisfying. >For this reason we'd like to go there ourselves. > > >Timothy Thats definatly a reason why people would like their to be such a mission, but they certainly wouldn't fund anything on this scale just out of curiousity. It would almost certainly be most of an order of magnitude more expensive then the U.S. Apollo program, and even things a order or two less expensive then Apollo can't get funded for reasons of science or curiosity. National prestigue works pretty well, but this seems a little steep for that. Commercial or defense works better, but neiather are applicable. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 06:11 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["9581" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "08:10:23" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "223" "Re: starship-design: Re: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA09823 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 06:11:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id GAA09809 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 06:11:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA07102; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 08:10:24 -0600 Message-Id: <9712101410.AA07102@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <01BD04EC.25EE2940.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Dec 9, 97 09:44:42 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 9580 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: One way (again...) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 08:10:23 -0600 (CST) L. Parker wrote: >On Tuesday, December 09, 1997 12:05 PM, Isaac Kuo >[SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: >> >It is statistically certain to fail. I.E. if you are asking a >> >systems to work longer then the average mean time to failure of >> >its parts, it will fail without the replacement of those parts. >Kelly's right it is certain. Not according to the numbers you supply, and you supply numbers for _current_ technology. Not the sort of technology that could acheive .2c. >> No it won't. The average mean time is an average. The part might >> fail before, or it might fail later. It could fail today. It >> could fail in a century. >Which is beside the point. Typical modern MTBFs are pitiful compared to >what the mission will require. And you are thinking MTBF of the PART, the >system as a whole is LESS than the lifetime of the weakest part. However, when you have replacement parts this effect is minimized. >> But there's no inherent reason why we would ask the systems to >> work longer than their average mean time to failure. We can >> bring spares to replace systems before they wear down dangerously. >No, you can't. You would have to bring the equivalent of four or five whole >ships worth of spare parts. Which isn't an inherent reason, because it's possible to bring four or five whole ships worth of spare parts. Increasing the ship mass by 10 or 20 or 200 times is still a bargain if it saves a mass increase of 10,000 for a return journey. >> >If the parts are primary structure (remember we'll be shaving >> >weight margines to get the thing flying) you need major shipyard >> >facilities. >> I don't think we'll be shaving weight. Even at .2c, the >> thing has _got_ to last at least 20 years or the whole endeavor >> wasn't worth a damn. >Which is exactly the point. We have NEVER built any mechanism that was >designed to function flawlessly for twenty years without ongoing >maintenance. Historical evidence would tend to argue that we can't. We aren't talking about a _mechanism_ there. We are talking about the primary structure. We've built structures which can last 20 years. And we are going to be performing ongoing maintenance. >> >>>Normal systems on that scale usually burn out after 40-50 years. >> >>>Given the lack of replacement parts (stored parts also don't last >> >>>forever), >> >>They don't have to last forever. They just have to last several >> >>decades. >The Air Force places a red tag shelf life on safety harness webbing at five >years. This means if it sits on a shelf for five years, the inspector must >physically destroy the webbing rather than chance its being used >accidentally. So? That's a paranoid government regulation. It doesn't reflect any MBTF for things hermetically sealed in storage in low pressure inert gas or vacuum. >> >Many can't last a few years on the shelf. >> Like what? The mission critical systems are: >> 1. The deceleration rocket systems. These have to last 2 decades >> and there's little margin for spares. However, after that >> they are no longer mission critical. >Current maximum operational lifetime: 50 hours continuous use, shelf life: >none. Huh? We don't have _any_ current deceleration rocket system suitable for a .2c mission. The rocket systems we do have aren't even remotely like what would be used for such a mission. And it's nonsense for shelf life to be lower than the lifetime during use. >> 2. Oxygen recycling and CO2 scrubbers. At least with current >> technology, they have a limited expected life span, but >> they are relatively lightwieght so many spares can be >> carried. I'm not sure about their shelf life. >Current maximum operational lifetime: 2 years continuous use, shelf life: >none. 2 years continuous use? Then bring 100 of them. And what do you mean by no shelf life? It makes no sense that it will just crumble to pieces if it's ever turned off. >> 3. Water recycling. I'm not sure about this part. >Current maximum operational lifetime: 2 years continuous use, shelf life: >none. So you bring 100 of them. I have no idea what this "shelf life: none" means. >> 4. Food storage. Irradiated canned food will easily last a couple >> hundred years. >> 5. Spare parts to repair hull problems. Aluminum nuts, bolts, >> welding solder, and wrenches in vacuum storage practically last >> forever. Arc welders also last practically forever since they're >> relatively simple devices easy to repair. >Do YOU know how to repair one? And just in case something happens to you, >how about the guy in the next cubicle? Yes, and if I had to I could probably build one with the spare parts in storage. So would everyone on the ship, at least a couple decades into the mission. >> 6. Spare solar panels and electrical components. Last prctically >> forever in storage. >Only, solid state devices have any reasonable shelf life. Unfortunately, >their operational life is so short that you will need a LOT of spares. So you carry lots of spares. Running a robotics lab has taught me that practically anything electronic can be revived eventually. >> >needs repair NOW, you can't just hope it woun't fail for >> >a decade or two for the last crewman to die. It almost >> >certainly will fail in months to years. >> Why would it almost certainly fail in months or years? Exactly >> what mission critical components are certain to fail, even with >> triple redundancy? (If there's only one or two crew left, >> the life support systems will be well below capacity.) >I already posted a long list of relatively simple, everyday items that must >be included on the ship, ALL of which will fail within five years. None of which seemed to me to be mission critical and all of which could be built to last. But we don't for everyday items because we have no reason to in everyday life. >Here is a real good question for you: if you fill an air tank with >compressed air to 3,000 psi and put it on a shelf then come back five years >later, how much air is in the tank? Answer: 14 psi. We can't even build a >non-moving air tank that will hold air with no pressure loss for five >years. How are you going to keep it in the ship? By having a really thick hull. Which you need anyway for radiation shielding. Also, the loss of air is proportional to surface area, while the amount of air is the volume of the crew compartment. The square/cube law alone guarantees a large crew compartment will lose air relatively more slowly than a small air tank. >> Why would the exploration gear become unservicable so quickly? >> At the very least, we can expect handheld optical telescopes >> to last hundreds of years. Even that alone, at such a close >> range, is enough to do serious scientific observations impossible >> from the Solar System. (Even if we figured out a way to make >> astronomically huge optical telescopes able to equal their >> resolution, we could not make fine corona observations since >> we'd lack the ability to shade out the photosphere.) >Isaac, would you give up your computer for a pen, paper and slide rule? Do >you even know how to use one? Not unnecessarily but I would do it if I had to. Yes, I know how to use pen, paper and slide rule--but I would prefer an abacus because it's faster and more precise. Most of my acedemic life I studied mathematics, which mostly involves lots and lots of proofs by derivations and calculations by hand with pen and paper (computers just can't handle this sort of thing yet). It really isn't that bad. >> >Past >> >that your need to strip those systems for pars to regulate life support, >> >medical, etc.. >> Huh? Keeping the systems alive will be a matter of repairing them >> with spares. There's not much commonality between a CO2 scrubber >> and an IR camera. >Forget the spares, there aren't going to be any. Do the mass calculations >before you bring this one up again. Figure the individual failure rates of >each part and the aggregate failure rates of each subsystem and system. >Compute average life expectancy for each system, add sufficient spare parts >to replace EVERY part in the system as many times as necessary to get there >(we won't even bother with getting back for this argument). Then total up >the additional mass and recompute fuel requirements. Before I do such mass calculations, why don't you list for me each and every part, and the mass ratios of each part relative to each other. My intuition is that spares will not increase mass by more than 1 or 2 orders of magnitude, since the majority of the payload mass will be in the highly robust deceleration rocket systems, the thick radiation-proof hull (which doesn't need much in terms of spares), and the food supplies. >> Most of the time spent on a manned spaceship, at least currently, is >> keeping yourself alive. That's a given. But really that's not so >> different from life here on Earth (especially if you're a farmer). >Until Mir began wearing out this simply wasn't true. Which is a great >example and case in point. Even with routine resupply, it is already almost >dead. Creeping advanced senility. Which is precisely what Kelly is saying. The reason Mir started dying is because it was up there for many years beyond its design lifetime. It simply wasn't designed to last that long. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 06:16 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1594" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "08:15:26" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "39" "starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA11306 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 06:16:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id GAA11251 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 06:16:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA07171; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 08:15:26 -0600 Message-Id: <9712101415.AA07171@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <01BD0497.296FAF80.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Dec 9, 97 11:24:49 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1593 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net (L. Parker) Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 08:15:26 -0600 (CST) L. Parker wrote: >On Tuesday, December 09, 1997 9:38 AM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] >wrote: >> While very promising, I don't like to trust the results of any one >> research group no matter how prestigious. >> I personally expect positive results, but would not count on any >> projected numbers until a full scale thruster was built and tested. >The main reason I like it is it isn't exotic, unknown technology. It is a >lot more likely that we can go from a test bed (current status) to >production technology in ten years than some of the weird ideas we >typically discuss. Yes, but I want to discuss even more mundane technological possibilities, like MagOrion. >There are several other possibilities out there (such as >dense plasma thrusters), some with higher ISPs, but lower overall thrust. >If they can be scaled up to provide more thrust, then they may be possible >as well. Even plasma thrusters lack the Isp for an interstellar mission. In order for the catalyzed fusion to be suitable for interstellar travel, you have to count on some sort of advances in Isp. >Overall, I am skeptical of our ability to make the fifty year timeline but >maybe seventy five or one hundred years. Unless of course someone comes up >with a breakthrough... I think the 100 year timeline is ridiculous. The first missions, which might be possible within 100 years, would be unmanned. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 06:29 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4259" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "08:28:04" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "93" "Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA13667 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 06:29:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id GAA13634 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 06:28:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA07412; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 08:28:04 -0600 Message-Id: <9712101428.AA07412@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <01BD0497.2E92FE40.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Dec 9, 97 11:38:40 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 4258 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 08:28:04 -0600 (CST) L. Parker wrote: >On Tuesday, December 09, 1997 9:55 AM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] >wrote: >> Resources on a planet are much more plentiful than in space, and >> much easier to get at (for the inhabitants). Furthermore, building >> habitats on a planet is much simpler than in space, because you get >> radiation and space debris shielding for free. >Yes, planets have more total resources perhaps, but typically they are not >as concentrated, and definitely harder to get at. That really depends on what resources you're talking about. I'm talking about the surface and atmosphere resources--which are all we've been able to sample so far anyway. The thing about building habitats on asteroids is that you're still limited to whatever resources happen to be on the asteroids and you've got to import the rest. That means you've got to spend the premium of getting all your stuff by space ship. And what do you have to export? Asteroid resources--until they run out. These are all much less of a problem on a planetbound colony. >Current concepts for >orbital mining and manufacturing use the tailings to build shielding which >is more than adequate for any conceivable circumstance short of a nova. Yes, but it still costs more than building habitats on a planet. >As far as easy of construction, I will grant that we have very little >experience with this right now, but fifty years from now it either won't be >an issue or we won't be going, period. Or were you planning on building the >ship on the ground? Huh? We aren't talking about any interstellar mission in this subthread. This is the question of orbital vs. planetary colonies. I'm arguing that there are indeed good reasons why you'd want to put a colony on a planet. >> IMO, this mission is still too ambitious for a first manned mission. >> A first manned mission cannot expect to get _any_ resources from the >> target system, because that first system will be the planetless Alpha >> Centauri system. >Perhaps it is ambitious, but I think it is really the most likely way of >doing a successful program. BTW, where did you by your telescope? I want >one too. I didn't know there weren't ANY planets around Alpha Centauri. Okay, it's theoretically possible for their to be exploitable planets around Alpha Centauri. I still don't think we'd be able to count on even knowing about their existence, much less bring equipment to exploit them, before a manned mission. An unmanned radar probe could find relatively large planets, but there's no reason to believe there are even small planets there yet. OTOH, we have good reason to believe a binary star system is much less likely to have planets around them (because there are so much fewer places to have a stable orbit). >> I don't think an unmanned flyby probe would be able to find usable >> resources even if they were there to be found (because it would >> lack the human creativity to recognize and scientificaly interpret >> something unexpected). With the 8 year two-way time delays, I >> don't think an unmanned 1-way probe would work out either. >Probably true. >> If there are resources to be exploited, then a 1-way manned mission >> is the way to find it. >> I think that we can send them there with the hope that they'll find >> something they can turn into something useful, but trying to build >> power stations from the hydrogen and helium of Alpha Centauran >> solar winds is trying to squeeze water out of graphite. >If we establish that there are no planets there, then obviously we wouldn't >attempt this kind of mission. Then again, we probably wouldn't send ANY >mission. IMO, we could and would eventually send a manned mission to Alpha Centauri. It's a beautiful scientific mission which actually does have long term critical benefits to humanity in that it will provide invaluble information about other star systems should we ever even begin to think about interstellar colonization. "What does it do to help our nation's defense?" "It make our nation more worth defending." -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 06:32 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1725" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "08:32:33" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "38" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA14104 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 06:32:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id GAA14064 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 06:32:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA07563; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 08:32:33 -0600 Message-Id: <9712101432.AA07563@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: from "David Levine" at Dec 9, 97 01:35:01 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1724 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: david@actionworld.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 08:32:33 -0600 (CST) David Levine wrote: >> From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu[SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] >> Transport shuttles? What's the point? You'd want some unmanned >> probes so you can get data from multiple points without wasting >> months and fuel flitting around (e.g. an orbiting probe to measure >> magnetic fields at various distances). >> Most observations, however, could and would be made from the main >> ship directly. I'm not sure why you expect the ships sensors and >> systems to wear out after only 40 years. >I'd have to say if you wanted manned vehicles to land on planets, you'd >have problems after a while - these can be delicate systems undergoing >enormous stress and requiring lots of maintenance (after all, look at >the space shuttle). I make the assumption that there aren't any planets. Maybe there will be small planetoids--in which case you could slide your ship next to one and use EVA maneuver suits to explore it. For the near future, any planetary landers must be planet-specific, so building a "general purpose one" meant to land on completely undiscovered planets is too much of a tall order. >If you are content to observe the planets from >orbit, but still need several vehicles (i.e. to split up into smaller >teams exploring the system), then you have less of a problem - >space-only in-system vehicles are likely to undergo much less stress, be >much simpler in design, and require much less maintenance. Same deal >with unmanned probes - Voyager's a lot cheaper and simpler if you launch >it from orbit. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 06:43 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2454" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "08:42:47" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "51" "Re: starship-design: Re: The Great Debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA16309 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 06:43:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id GAA16300 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 06:43:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA07739; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 08:42:47 -0600 Message-Id: <9712101442.AA07739@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <01BD04DA.F20F1BE0.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Dec 9, 97 07:43:52 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2453 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: The Great Debate Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 08:42:47 -0600 (CST) L. Parker wrote: >On Tuesday, December 09, 1997 10:57 AM, Isaac Kuo >[SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: [about the theoretical market for a massive amount of beamed power] >> The affordability of the powerful deceleration leg fusion rocket >> (that we can afford it at all) suggests we have similar fusion >> power generation capability which is relatively affordable. >> Given the plentiful inexpensive energy everywhere, who's going >> to need beam power? >I don't really care which you use, but there is a small flaw in both of >your reasoning here. The FUEL for the fusion rocket (or power plant) comes >from somewhere, which requires energy to extract. In the case of an >antimatter rocket, we have proposed building orbital power satellites to >power giant cyclotrons (or whatever better device we come up with) for the >sole purpose of manufacturing antimatter so that we can use it to produce >fuel. The energy always has to come from somewhere, in this case, solar >radiation -> antimatter -> nuclear radiation. Umm...this isn't the case of an antimatter rocket. We're talking about the fuel/sail concept with a fusion deceleration rocket. The question is how much of a benefit is possible from selling the power from the beam satellites after they're done acceleration the starship. This is very speculative, but it's worth thinking about anyway because the overwhelming majority of the cost of the fuel/sail starship is the cost of the beam satellites (which mass at least thousands of times as much as the deceleration fuel and IMO make it cost at least thousands of times as much). [...] >One of Isaac's >arguments is the inefficiency of the beamed power concept over interstellar >distances, and he is right. But within the immediate area of the Sun it is >very efficient and far cheaper than standard fission/fusion. >So for local power, Kelly is right (sort of) and for interstellar >propulsion, Isaac is right (sort of). I think you're a little bit confused about what we're discussing here. Neither of us are proposing using beamed power over interstellar distances, and Kelly isn't proposing using the beams to accelerate the starship in the immediate area of the sun (it's being used for a starship's low acceleration run). -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 07:18 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1474" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "16:17:21" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "35" "Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA23253 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 07:18:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA23242 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 07:18:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA03078; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:17:21 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199712101517.QAA03078@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1473 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:17:21 +0100 (MET) > From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) > > In reply to Zenon: > >Generally, though, I am not some single-minded enthusiast > >of just the one-way missions. I want only to consider > >this mission type as one of the viable options to discuss > >calmly its pros and cons. What prompted my sometimes > >heated argument with Kelly on this issue was Kelly's > >constant labelling of one-way missions as "suicide" missions > >(which I think is simply wrong) and dismissing them > >as outright unacceptable on this ground. > > I'd also not call it suicide, but I could imagine that the last years of > ones life would not be as comfortable as they would be on Earth. Certainly > not for those that survive the mayority of the crew. > Certainly. But who says interstellar exploration must be a nice and cosy affair like munching potato chips on the couch before a TV-set? ;-) > Anyhow, this discussion is probably very close to the Earthly discussion > about euthanasia. Clearly there isn't a general concensus about that topic, > so it's no wonder that the discussion about one-way missions becomes a bit > heated every now and then. > Hmm, possibly, though I think your analogy is wrong - I do not see any correspondence between the two (except, possibly, that they both lead to heated discussions...). For that matter I am principally and unconditionally against euthanasia, while I would gladly go for a one-way mission to Alpha Centauri... -- Zenon From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 07:48 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["778" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "10:43:35" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "20" "RE: RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA01498 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 07:48:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA01486 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 07:47:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:43:37 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 777 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:43:35 -0500 > ---------- > From: Kelly St[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] > Subject: Re: RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) > > flights to other stars might be fundable.) But beyond that credible > reasons > are near nil. > Right. In the original concept for this design group, we were assuming some extremely pressing reason-to-go had come up. I think the assumption was the remote detection of life-bearing planets in the target system, with a potential mission receiving large amounts of popular support. ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 07:51 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["923" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "10:46:40" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "25" "RE: starship-design: Re: debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA02165 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 07:51:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA02156 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 07:51:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:46:42 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 922 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: debate Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:46:40 -0500 > ---------- > From: Kelly St[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] > Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: debate > > The oil companies do expect practical fusion to really crater their > market in > 50 years or so, but since they've identofied at least 2 centuries of > oil > (assuming no market losses to other sources, and a continuation of > world > consuption growth rates), a future oil shock is not likely to help > push the > tech. > Well, this isn't entirely true. Two centuries worth of oil is indeed there, but much of it is considerably more expensive to extract than current oil. Prices will still rise considerably, even though the oil is there. ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 08:41 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1633" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "11:35:54" "EST" "Gertchen1" "Gertchen1@aol.com" nil "33" "starship-design: StarShip Design: Request and Questions" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA22511 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 08:41:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.167]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA22501 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 08:41:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <78fc1d97.348ec4ec@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Gertchen1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1632 From: Gertchen1 Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu, lparker@cacaphony.net Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: StarShip Design: Request and Questions Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 11:35:54 EST In a message dated 97-12-10 10:33:57 EST, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu writes: << >> Like what? The mission critical systems are: >> 1. The deceleration rocket systems. These have to last 2 decades >> and there's little margin for spares. However, after that >> they are no longer mission critical. >Current maximum operational lifetime: 50 hours continuous use, shelf life: >none. Huh? We don't have _any_ current deceleration rocket system suitable for a .2c mission. The rocket systems we do have aren't even remotely like what would be used for such a mission. >> If a starship is constructed in space, then there should be a major decrease in the amount of fuel it requires. I am assuming that these ships would be taking off the ground. Depending on the mass, and length, the ship may break in two if the ship's rear boosters lifted it up. Some kind of front, middle and rear booster will be required to have it lift off the ground. However, this is a big waste. Why have these things, if they're that big, waste precious fuel on the ground when they can just stay in space? Transports, or planes can bring stuff back and forth into space, and dock with the vessel. I do not see why so much fuel must be wasted to boost one rocket if the ship could stay in space and not run out of oxygen. Perhaps, with a crew of fifty, and the ship being about a mile in length, an entire deck rich with oxygen giving plants and a routine filling of oxygen tanks would be sufficient. Since I am writing a book, I am on the quest for starship designs, mostly warships. Any designs would be appreciated ^_^ Thanks! Gertie From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 10:04 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["8554" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "19:04:03" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "212" "Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA06411 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:04:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA06269 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:04:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id TAA03195; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 19:04:03 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199712101804.TAA03195@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 8553 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 19:04:03 +0100 (MET) > From: Kelly St > > In a message dated 12/8/97 3:24:52 PM, you wrote: > > >From: Kelly St > >> > >> Then don't go by train. Most of our systems could get their once and > >> back easier and cheaper then going their and seting up infastructure. > >> > >That is debatable. > > > >My opinion is that it would be cheaper to go one-way to establish > >infrastructure (as I have written before the biggest problem as for now > >is the propulsion - certainly going one-way halves this problem). > > I disagree strongly. A construction expidition or a long duration mission > would need to be far better equiped, and far larger. Hence, both would be > more expensive. > Due to the distances, the time duration of the two types of mission, when taking into account Isaac's calculations that most probably due to technologially affordable mass ratios, the cruise speed for the two-way mission would have to be halved: 0ne-way: flight there (10 yrs); + sustained stay for the rest of the crew (natural) life (with life expectancy in space of 70 yrs, age at start 30yrs, and flight time 10 yrs, this phase will last 30yrs at most); = 40 yrs; Two-way: flight there (20 yrs); + sustained stay for the exploration phase (5 yrs); + flight back (20 yrs); = 45 yrs. may actually be in favor of the one-way mission. Not speaking about the fact that those who return from the two-way mission will land on Earth five years after their life expectancy... Hence, the two-way mission will need approximately the same amount (and duration needs) of the equipment. But two-way will be much more demanding from the fuel/engine point of view (as Isaac correctly remarked, not simply two times more, but possibly orders of magnitude more). Hence, which would cost more - still REMAINS DEBATABLE. Note also that in order to not became a suicide mission, the two-way mission plan must ALSO be capable to safely change it into one-way at target when the return flight becomes impossible for some quite probable reasons (engine failure, problems with fuel mining at target, etc.). > >Especially in long run: two-way leaves practically nothing > >over there to go back for; establishing an outpost - well, > >establishes a target to return to (at least to help with new > >supplies them struggling over there...). > > > >Remember Apollo - a plant-the-flag mission has little consequences > >and does not lead to sustained exploration. > >The Russian "Mir", being a true outpost in near-space > >is since many years the only long-term space project - > >one of its main effects being prevention of Russian space program > >from a total collapse... > >The two-way mission "just to show it is possible" will also make > >a much less impact and consequence than the outpost-building. > > No, we would not go somewhere just to go to an outpost. In itself, > an outpost isn't a goal or a reason for going somewhere. > At best its a tool to allow you to do something there. > At worst its a stunt. (Been there, done that, took > our bows, and went home.) > Ahh, but the above applies even stronger to the two-way mission (especially the "and went home" part ;-)). Hence, from this point of view one-way and two-way seem equivalent... > If your assuming a maned outpost, it would be a strong incentive to cancel > the first mission. I.E. to prevent being forced to eather: > send a retriaval expidition to bring them back, or to take the heat > for leaving them to die for some Apollo like stunt. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > You again with that "leaving them to die" rhetoric... And "leaving them to die" back on Earth is so much better? Or "leaving them to die" during the long and quite boring return flight (of old age/sickness or in a catastrophic accident, much more probable during the return flight due to engine wear)? > >And, Kelly, you seem to contradict yourself at the costs issue - > >in another post you have written: > > > >> From: Kelly St > >> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 10:59:57 EST > >> [...] > >> Thats effectivly a suicide mission. I know a few folks in this group > >> disagree, or don't care, but it still would meen no government on earth > >> could get permision for such a mission. > >> I.E. your throwing away a crew for no critical reason. > >> Specifically your doing it to save money, > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> which is really not going to sell. > >> > >I.e., you assume (and use it as an argument!) > >that one-way will save money... Voila! > > I thought you had used that as an argument!? Why else would you not > equip an expidition with a return capability? I thought your whole > suggestion for this started as a suggestion to save money? > No. You suggested that one-way will be much more costly (due to much larger needs for long duration supplies, repair factories, etc.). I had only countered your opinion on that, arguing that the costs might actually be smaller for one-way. My main arguments in favor for one-way were (and are): - technological feasibility; - safety. Cost is for me a secondary factor here, but, in my opinion, ALSO in favor of one-way. > >> >> Seariously a big question we've never gotten very far with is why > >> >> anyone would send such a mission? > >> > > >> >See, above. I still haven't found a sound reason to send any mission. > >> >Lee > >> > >> Me neiather. > >> Kelly > >> > >Yes, in short term, there isn't any. > >But remember Sagan: > >"All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct." > > Tese missions would in no way make us a more 'spacefaring civilization'. > They would however require us to already be a very space faring > civilization to launch them. > Yes, before undertaking an insterstellar mission we must be already a very spacefaring civilization - in fact I have repeated this several times in our discussions in the past (and in the next paragraph of my previous letter too, see below). However, going interstellar will be the logical and ncessary NEXT step to become really spacefaring, not merely in-system-faring... We all agree that interstellar travel is orders of magnitude harder than in-system, hence being able to launch a starship will certainly signify that we are much more spacefaring than before. > >Of course, we must first settle our system to a significant > >degree (at least to be able to built a HUGE starship > >without hauling all that mass from Earth's gravity well). > > > >Thus, barring some great breakthrough like FTL, > >I do not see any real possibility (if not technological, > >then psycho-/econo-/political) to send a manned interstellar > >mission within 50 years or so. > On the abvoe we agree, I presume? ;-0 > >Returning to Sagan, his prediction already seems to turn > >the dangerous way - as Kyle has remarked: > > > >> From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" > >> > >> The visionaries of our world are nearly gone. What I mean by this is > >> the ones that saw true worth in our exploration and expansion, > >> those such as Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, and the like are all dying. > >> The sad thing is, there seem to be few if any new visionaries > >> like them. I, being a teenager, spend considerable > >> time with other teenagers, and can tell you that the vision is gone. > >> Arthur C. Clarke and Rober Bussard won't be around forever. > >> I just wonder where the human in humanity has gone. > >> > >Without opening a real big frontier in space, the humanity will > >decline even faster and earlier than we may expect. > >The symptoms are already quite visible. > > I'm not sure what your talking about as symptoms, > One example - a prominent member of the interstellar travel discussion list so strongly opposed to even considering one-way missions as a discussion option! ;-( > but their are plenty of > other visionaries. Many working to build more realistic and grand visions. > But they aren't as interesting to the public at the moment. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You just pointed out another symptom... > Personally I think interest in space will perk up when space does do things. > At the moments its effects have been quite underwelming given the levels of > effort. A more productive space program, should gain more interest and > approval. > Possibly, let us hope so. But without a vision and exploration spirit in plenty, there will be NO "more productive space program", or even any space program. Agreed? -- Zenon From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 11:55 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["777" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "14:53:05" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "19" "Re: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA13263 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 11:55:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.166]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA13216 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 11:55:12 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38ad9728.348ef324@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 776 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: david@actionworld.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 14:53:05 EST In a message dated 12/9/97 4:46:45 PM, david@actionworld.com wrote: >I would agree, though, that in general there is liable to be a great >deal more maintenance than we realize (in any rate, one should be >prepared for it) - but I don't see how that has to be a limiting factor. >I think it would be possible to have a design modular enough that >repairs are not nearly as complex as they are today (i.e. refurbishing a >space shuttle) - the problem would be creating the spares, but I think >that if anything, the next 50 years will bring great advances in >manufacturing automation and size. >------------------------------------------------------ >David Levine Agreed. Hell if it doesn't we'ld never be able to build and launch the ship and support systems. ;) Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 11:58 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2462" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "14:53:26" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "62" "Re: starship-design: Re: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA15213 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 11:58:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.166]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA15189 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 11:58:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <75b22aa8.348ef338@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2461 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: One way (again...) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 14:53:26 EST >> >If the parts are primary structure (remember we'll be shaving >> >weight margines to get the thing flying) you need major shipyard >> >facilities. >> >> I don't think we'll be shaving weight. Even at .2c, the >> thing has _got_ to last at least 20 years or the whole endeavor >> wasn't worth a damn. > >Which is exactly the point. We have NEVER built any mechanism that was >designed to function flawlessly for twenty years without ongoing >maintenance. Historical evidence would tend to argue that we can't. The deep space probes like Pioneer, Viking, and Voyager had multi decade service lives. Thou thie trivially simple compare to these ships. >> >>>Normal systems on that scale usually burn out after 40-50 years. >> >>>Given the lack of replacement parts (stored parts also don't last >> >>>forever), >> >> >>They don't have to last forever. They just have to last several >> >>decades. > >The Air Force places a red tag shelf life on safety harness webbing at five >years. This means if it sits on a shelf for five years, the inspector must >physically destroy the webbing rather than chance its being used >accidentally. Oo, excelent example. I forgot about material decays in plastics. ===> >> Why would it almost certainly fail in months or years? Exactly >> what mission critical components are certain to fail, even with >> triple redundancy? (If there's only one or two crew left, >> the life support systems will be well below capacity.) > >I already posted a long list of relatively simple, everyday items that must >be included on the ship, ALL of which will fail within five years. > >Here is a real good question for you: if you fill an air tank with >compressed air to 3,000 psi and put it on a shelf then come back five years >later, how much air is in the tank? Answer: 14 psi. We can't even build a >non-moving air tank that will hold air with no pressure loss for five >years. How are you going to keep it in the ship? Excelant point. One possible siolution for a star ship would be solder joints on all seals. If you want to rotate something, you heat the joints until they melt, rotate them, then cool and resolder the joint. Still would leak out all the air every few years thou. Ox and CO2 isn't a big problem, we can store tha in chemical bounds, but how the hell do you store nitrogen?! It doesn't bound well with anything,and cryo tanks would bleed off long before we were done. ==> >Lee Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 12:01 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3544" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "14:53:18" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "81" "Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA17408 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:01:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.169]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA17338 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:01:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3543 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 14:53:18 EST In a message dated 12/9/97 1:15:09 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >L. Parker wrote: > >>Several months ago I made the statement that there is more incentive to >>stay in space where power is cheap, resources are plentiful and >>(comparatively) easy to get at. So I really have a hard time seeing why >>anyone would want to go to another star just to _settle_ on a planet. > >Resources on a planet are much more plentiful than in space, and >much easier to get at (for the inhabitants). Furthermore, building >habitats on a planet is much simpler than in space, because you get >radiation and space debris shielding for free. Actually most of our richest ore vains are from old crashed asteroids. Materials inspace are FAR more avalible, and orders of magnitude higher in purity. Stainless steel for example can be mined in almost finished alloy form, oil and petrochemicals can be scooped up by the montain load etc. Space is nowe considered a far more viable location for an industrial soceity then any planet. Read some of the old O'neil books. >>If you bear that in mind, and look at the mission profile as one that is >>designed to begin building an outpost in orbit in that system for the >>purpose of continuing exploration and creating a spaceborne infrastructure >>for follow on missions, only some of which might be concerned with actually >>landing on a planet, then it is not a one way mission. Nor is it exactly a >>colonization mission. > >IMO, this mission is still too ambitious for a first manned mission. >A first manned mission cannot expect to get _any_ resources from the >target system, because that first system will be the planetless Alpha >Centauri system. How do you know their are no planets? We certainly have no more then guess work to go by know. Further if the system was empty their would be no reason to send an expidition. >I don't think an unmanned flyby probe would be able to find usable >resources even if they were there to be found (because it would >lack the human creativity to recognize and scientificaly interpret >something unexpected). With the 8 year two-way time delays, I >don't think an unmanned 1-way probe would work out either. > >If there are resources to be exploited, then a 1-way manned mission >is the way to find it. You want to send people on a expidition dependant on local material, before you know their are anylocal materials!!!! Thats crazy! At least the Kamakazis knew there were americans to die killing. By your statments you expect to send a crew and possibly have them get there find nothing their to look at or use? >>It is a team of scientists, and engineers and technicians with a definite >>purpose - build a fully self sustaining outpost in orbit around another >>star. Once they have done that they can then build power stations to >>produce more fuel so that 2-way travel becomes more practicable. > >I think that we can send them there with the hope that they'll find >something they can turn into something useful, but trying to build >power stations from the hydrogen and helium of Alpha Centauran >solar winds is trying to squeeze water out of graphite. > >Our best hope would be if their Oort clouds had useful substances >and/or there are unexpected useful planetoids. I don't think we'd >be able to get more than a cursory glance at these things before >going there ourselves, though. We should be able to image thing in the star system down to atleast a few meters resoultion from Sol. >-- > _____ Isaac Kuo Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 12:04 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1261" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "14:53:23" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "32" "Re: starship-design: Re: debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA19649 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:04:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.177]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA19626 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:04:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1260 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: debate Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 14:53:23 EST In a message dated 12/9/97 11:37:12 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>>It might go somewhere if you read my proof and dispute _it_, and not >>>some mixture of your own fantasy and straw man. > >>>Honestly, it's better for you to dispute it with a logical argument >>>than for you to simply dismiss it out of hand. > >>>Which is what you're doing if you don't even read it carefully. > >>I did read it, and responded to it with technical criticisms, and several >>times mentioned parts that I could clearly interpret. Given the obvious >>contradictions I'm eaither not following what your saying, or your idea seems >>contradictory. > >Look. I've never written anything here with any contradictions, >obvious or otherwise. You just have an incredible capacity to >misread, misinterpret, and/or unjustifiably assume things. The >most aggravating thing about trying to discuss anything with you >is your inability to comprehend precisely what's written and >the way you inject straw-men which aren't even hinted at. I.E. your not being unclear, I'm just to stupid to understand what your talking about? Try again. Or, you could try describing your system, in detail, and list why you think it would save significant power, and I'll comment on it. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 12:06 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["9662" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "14:53:03" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "207" "starship-design: Re: Re: debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA20550 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:06:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.165]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA20499 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:06:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 9661 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Re: debate Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 14:53:03 EST In a message dated 12/9/97 11:55:52 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>>>Beyond that plannig on such systems in the next 50 years is highly >>>>conservative even by the standrads of commercial investors. > >>>Commercial investors take amazing risks all the time. They need to >>>do so in order to make their overall profits. That is the nature >>>of investment. Given the current profitability of the stock market >>>compared to bonds, I would have thought that obvious. > >>Commercial investors never take amazing risks. Their entire focus >>is to avoid amazing risks. > >Untrue. They regularly invest large sums of money on speculations >which may fail, and when it's other people's money it can make big >news when the bet fails. All investments are risks. "amazing risks" suggests an unusually high risk >The larger the sums of money, the more risk investors take. On one >end of the spectrum are personal savings, which require a low risk >strategy in order to save up retirement funds safely. On the other >end of the spectrum is Bill Gates, who has so much money to spare >that he can afford to risk most of his eggs in one basket--his own >company--because it is the most profitable place to put it. There's >maybe a 5% chance that a some "disaster" will cripple Microsoft >stock--that's too much of a risk for anyone to put their entire >retirement savings into Microsoft stock alone, but Bill Gates can >afford to put the vast majority of his money in Microsoft stock >because even in the worst case what remains is plenty. No, thats not what risks mean. Gates invests in MS stock because it gives him more control in his company and because (as you stated above ["There's maybe a 5% chance that a some "disaster" will cripple Microsoft"]) its a very low risk investment. >>>>>Something _might_ be discovered in the next millenia which will lead >>>>>to fantastic increases in space propulsion beyond the theoretical >>>>>anti-matter rocket. If so, I'll bet it won't look anything like >>>>>anything we've imagined. > >>>>We only figured out mass conversion and fission theories in the last hundred >>>>years. Expecting we woun't find a few such stagering things in the next >>>>hundred is really better against the odds and history. > >>>So what? > >>So your comment that "Something _might_ be discovered in the next millenia >>which will lead to fantastic increases in space propulsion..." is >>statistacally far to conservative. > >No, I don't think so. > >Sure, something will lead to fantastic increases in space propulsion >compared to TODAY's technology. But look carefully at what I say. > >I say, "Something _might_ be discovered ... which will lead to >fantastic increases ... beyond the theoretical anti-matter rocket." > >Beyond the theoretical anti-matter rocket. > >I have great confidence that for interstellar travel something on >the level of a theoretical anti-matter rocket or less will remain >the best we can hope for in the next millenia. The physics of >relativity and conservation of energy strongly suggest this. The physics of relativity and conservation of energy have only been developted in the last century. They are not the end of physics research, nore are they likely to be the ultimate form of power or rocket physics. Research into newer physics, capable of far greater power, performance, etc (zero point energy, inertia/mass damping, etc) has progressed to the degree that NASA is funding some conferences and studies on them. So I would estimate that the odds that current physics (like the physics of relativity and conservation of energy, or mass conversion rockets) will not be greatly surpassed in the next century, are about nil (assuming no colapse of civilization). >>>>>You were looking to avoid a mere 160,000-1 fuel ratio? In favor >>>>>of a 400-1 fuel ratio? Just how lightweight did you think the >>>>>microwave satellites were going to be? Show me numbers. Power-weight >>>>>ratios. Desired output thrust. I'll bet that given any reasonable >>>>>numbers, you'll find that the mass of the microwave emitter satellites >>>>>will end up weighing more than 400 times the sailship. > >>>>Don't care about the weight of the sats since we don't need to carry them. > >>>But you _do_ have to build them. That's going to cost--and by my >>>estimate cost a hell of a lot more than the fuel you're "saving". > >>>I make that estimate using mass comparisons, because it's hard to >>>say what the actual monetary costs may be in the future. I make >>>the assumption that at any given time, the cost of a ton of fusion >>>rocket fuel will be less than the cost of a ton of beam emitter >>>array. > >>Mass comparisons are rather irrelavent. The cost of an ore, vrs a >>manufactured systems vary wildly, and are not liniarly related to mass. > >Yes, they vary wildly--but in all cases the cost of the manufactured >system is more than the cost of the raw materials used to manufacture >it. This should be obvious. But they are not made out of similar materials. For example an IC chip made out of silicon may or may not be worth its weight in gold. Or the cost of gold could increase or decrease by orders of magnitude. >The costs of various raw materials may differ, but fusion rocket >fuel (Deuterium and possibly Hydrogen; D-D fusion is trivial if >we have Li6-H fusion) will very likely always costs less than >the metals/composites used to manufacture beam satellites. Deuterium, He3 and other exotic issotopes is extreamly rare and difficult to aguire, so its cost per pound could be hundreds to thousands of times as much as Li-6, and likely to cost far more pound for pound they an equal weight of solar power sat, much less they the equivelant weight of silicon, iron, or aluminum (the major materials for solar power sats). >>>The only saving grace of the laser sail vs. increased fuel would be >>>that the beam emitters may already be built and/or they may be reused. > >>>For a first interstellar mission (which is what we should be discussing, >>>since it's so hard already), it's unlikely they would already be >>>built. There's no way to justify the expense of making them such >>>long range other than being meant for an interstellar mission. > >>Which is another advatage of a dispered phased array system that could be >>adapted to longer range without significant modification. (Even thou the >>efficence would decline.) > >Huh? Advantage over what? A dispersed phased array system can't >be adapted to longer range without significant modification. What >_can_ be done is to increase it's efficiency by bunching it up >together as tightly as possible, ideally shoulder-to-shoulder. > >The only thing you gain by dispersing them over a wide area is... >you don't gain anything, actually. At every range, the beam >produced by the tightly bunched up array is superior to the >beam produced by the widely dispersed array. You gain increased range due to the larger virtual lens from the array. Being able to focus the beam acuratly over interstellar distences was identified as a major problem by the group a year or two back. And yes the phased array planforms are likely to require fair little modification to do this. >>>The possible reuse of the lasers is particularly notable if it is >>>reused in a single mission (e.g. sequencially launching multiple >>>modules which provide deceleration fuel). > >>>However, the possible reuse of lasers for marketable power generation >>>is, IMO, dubious. First, there has to be a market for that amount >>>of power. > >>Presumably for large scale industrial operations in space, such as non near >>earth asteropid work and transport. But agreed, this is speculative. > >The only serious use for them I can imagine is for laser powered >rocket transport. Assuming nuclear reactors remain expensive and/or >fission materials remain restricted, laser powered rockets offer >great potential savings in rocket costs. > >For any sort of heavy industrial work where it's worth putting a >high power refinery on site, it's also worth putting its power >source on site. Beamed power really only offers a potential >advantage in cases where the power is only needed a small fraction >of the time (which is the case for rockets). Since the refineries and propulsion platforms would need to relocate around asteroidal space, being able to buy a couple months powe without shipping a power plant to the site could make a lot of economic sence. With the power levels this system is capable of it could directly melt ore bearing asteroids by transmitted power. With a little workl it could be used to "blow" a metal asteroid into a hollow cylinder of sphere like a glass blower. !!!!! Or it could be used as an asteroid clearence system to burn everything out of earth crossing orbits! That might make the system more saleable?! Humm.. probably an overly complex and expensive way to do that thou. >>>Third, in this example we >>>assume fusion power is available for the deceleration leg. If that's >>>the case, then who's going to bother buying beam power? > >>I can't follow this bit. > >The affordability of the powerful deceleration leg fusion rocket >(that we can afford it at all) suggests we have similar fusion >power generation capability which is relatively affordable. >Given the plentiful inexpensive energy everywhere, who's going >to need beam power? Saying you have fision power, does not mean its the cheapest form of power, nor the cheapest way to get power to a remote area. We have nuclear powe plants, but still fire foundrys with coal. >-- > _____ Isaac Kuo Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 12:07 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3302" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "14:53:21" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "69" "Re: Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA20922 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:07:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.175]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA20902 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:07:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <18c2c029.348ef333@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3301 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 14:53:21 EST In a message dated 12/9/97 1:17:11 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) >> >> It is almost a fact that every two-way mission needs to get its fuel for >> the return-trip from the target system. That is, if you want to decrease >> cost (and thus effort). >> If a design allows to do without resources from the target system, it means >> that fuel supplies square, which usually makes bad numbers worst. >> However most of our designs can't do without resources from the target >> system anyway, so we have to face that we'll need some form of industry at >> the target system. This does not necessarily mean that we need complete >> rocket building factories, but instead specialized fuel or other bulk ore >> collectors. >> >> The question is how much effort would a one-way mission save? It likely >> does need less bulk resources, but more specialized resources. There's >> a big chance that both kinds of mission will cost as much. >> >> There is however a big advantage of staying in the target system, rather >> than "floating" through space another 10 year. In the target system you >> have all the resources you want (including energy), but in space you've >> nothing. Also in the target system you won't need your most critical >> (and likely most deteriorating) part of the ship: The engines. >> Kelly continously tells us, that to stay at the target system we need to be >> selfsufficient. But don't we need to be selfsufficient if we stay from home >> 20 years (which is the minimum time for a two-way mission)? No, thats the whole point. If we can keep the total mission length less than the time the that ships systems will start needing major repair, and within the amounts of stored food we can carry. We dramatically cut down on the servicing requirements, and hence needed crew size, repair suplies, and ship size. >> In short, I'm not so much wondering what is cheaper, but more about what is >> saver. Or to put is less subjective: What has a bigger chance >> of succeeding? >> >Yes, I do agree with the above. >My talking about costs has been prompted mostly by Kelly's >latest arguments concerning costs. >In one of the previous periods of this one-way discussion, >I used mostly just the safety argument - >in my opinion strongly in favor for the one-way mission >(provided the target system has enough accessible resources). > >Generally, though, I am not some single-minded enthusiast >of just the one-way missions. I want only to consider >this mission type as one of the viable options to discuss >calmly its pros and cons. What prompted my sometimes >heated argument with Kelly on this issue was Kelly's >constant labelling of one-way missions as "suicide" missions >(which I think is simply wrong) and dismissing them >as outright unacceptable on this ground. I deliberately refure to them as "suicide" missions for two reason. First to emphasis that that is how they will be perceved as by the public. Secound because I beleve the odds of outliving the dieing ships systems decrease exponetially as you significantly extend the mission length. The later can be compensated for by an exponential increase in ship suplies and crew resources, but the later is unchangable. >-- Zenon Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 12:07 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["14153" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "14:53:14" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "322" "Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA20985 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:07:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.167]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA20947 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:07:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 14152 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 14:53:14 EST In a message dated 12/9/97 12:55:55 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>>>Actually even if you had a couple hundred years of suplies its unlikely the >>>>ship could stay functional for more then a few decades. > >>>Even if that were the case, it's not _certain_ to fail. At least >>>in American culture, this is a critical difference. It's why we >>>were willing to enlist in 2 dozen bombing mission tours but never >>>even considered Kamikaze missions. > >>It is statistically certain to fail. I.E. if you are asking a >>systems to work longer then the average mean time to failure of >>its parts, it will fail without the replacement of those parts. > >No it won't. The average mean time is an average. The part might >fail before, or it might fail later. It could fail today. It >could fail in a century. The mean unrepaired service life of a systems is less then the mtbf of any of its parts. The higher percentage of parts with MTBF less then the desired service life, the higher liklyhood failure before then. >But there's no inherent reason why we would ask the systems to >work longer than their average mean time to failure. We can >bring spares to replace systems before they wear down dangerously. Assuming the spare can last that long on the shelf, and you can carry that many extras. >>If the parts are primary structure (remember we'll be shaving >>weight margines to get the thing flying) you need major shipyard >>facilities. > >I don't think we'll be shaving weight. Even at .2c, the >thing has _got_ to last at least 20 years or the whole endeavor >wasn't worth a damn. True I was suggesting a service life goal for a 2 way ship at 40 years, which seems a streach, but probably doable. But adding a few decades on the end would significantly cut you odds. >>>>Normal systems on that scale usually burn out after 40-50 years. >>>>Given the lack of replacement parts (stored parts also don't last >>>>forever), > >>>They don't have to last forever. They just have to last several >>>decades. > >>Many can't last a few years on the shelf. > >Like what? The mission critical systems are: > >1. The deceleration rocket systems. These have to last 2 decades > and there's little margin for spares. However, after that > they are no longer mission critical. Given they rockets are only need to decel into the system and later burn out of it back to Sol. They reallu only need to work for a couple months to years, and be storable in hard vac for a couple decades. Actually since you need all engines working to brake you into the system, but can take as long as you like to burn you way back up to speed on the way back, the return boost can afford for most of the engines to fail or be dumped. >2. Oxygen recycling and CO2 scrubbers. At least with current > technology, they have a limited expected life span, but > they are relatively lightwieght so many spares can be > carried. I'm not sure about their shelf life. Scrubbers wouldn't work, but we could synthasis the ox out of water in the air. (Odd bit of matabolism I found. The ox we breathing winds up in the water we excreat, the ox in the CO2 comes from other sources. weird.) >3. Water recycling. I'm not sure about this part. Boil it to steam and condese it out. Replace burned out reaction chambers every few years(?). Foutunately stainless steel is plantifull in asteroids. >4. Food storage. Irradiated canned food will easily last a couple > hundred years. The containers arn't likely to last for centuries! >5. Spare parts to repair hull problems. Aluminum nuts, bolts, > welding solder, and wrenches in vacuum storage practically last > forever. Arc welders also last practically forever since they're > relatively simple devices easy to repair. > >6. Spare solar panels and electrical components. Last prctically > forever in storage. Electrical and electronic systems tend to degrade to junk after a few years on the shelf. They actually last longer ion use then stored in many cases. >Really, the only mission critical items which I can see having >a problem with storage life are the recycling systems, which >might require somewhat chemically active components. Anything that will chemically react with its storage environment, or itself, will degrade in storage. Thats why everything from drugs to batteries has an experation date on it. As Lee mentioned even plastics on the shelf break down. Circutry components (like the inside of an IC chip) chemically react to consume themselves on the shelf. Storing things at cryo in nitrogen helps, but the chill down can destroy the internal structure of material or components. >>>Why would the crew be wearing out? We'd be getting old after a >>>while, but at that point it would be getting less and less >>>important to have the equipment last much longer. > >>It has to keep working for the crew to keep living. If it >>needs repair NOW, you can't just hope it woun't fail for >>a decade or two for the last crewman to die. It almost >>certainly will fail in months to years. > >Why would it almost certainly fail in months or years? Exactly >what mission critical components are certain to fail, even with >triple redundancy? (If there's only one or two crew left, >the life support systems will be well below capacity.) How many months with out service would you expect your car to keep runing after the check engine light comes on? Why do you think ship and subs keep such large maintenece crews, and airplaces often need days of support crew time for every hour they fly. This stuff takes a beating. And if any of the parts cut out, the system starts to fail. If you don't fix things they stop working, and as the crew gets smaller, their are fewer of them to fix all the stuff they need to stay alive. I.E. most everything in the ship! >>>The life expectancy would indeed be greatly reduced compared to >>>staying at home. Besides the lack of medical facilities, there's >>>the issue of improvements in technology back at home. > >>>The worst case possibility is if someone develops a "fountain of youth >>>pill", which can be manufactured on the ship. Then the crew would >>>be guaranteed to die due to lack of supplies and/or ship failure. > >>>But none of this is _guaranteed_. So it's not a suicide mission. > >>Your sending people out to to a decade or two of work (at most until the >>exploration gear become unservicable) and then sit in the deralic ship until >>they die. > >Why would the exploration gear become unservicable so quickly? >At the very least, we can expect handheld optical telescopes >to last hundreds of years. Even that alone, at such a close >range, is enough to do serious scientific observations impossible >from the Solar System. (Even if we figured out a way to make >astronomically huge optical telescopes able to equal their >resolution, we could not make fine corona observations since >we'd lack the ability to shade out the photosphere.) Actually telescopes arn't worth sending, you can see the systems perfectly well from here with a big enough scope. FAR easier to build a scope here with a synthetic apiture a few light secounds across, rather then keep a 1 meter scope working a few light years from home. Yes you can shade out the photosphere from here, especially from space. Or, you could use electronic imaging systems that can see the corona without blocking the photosphere. No observation studies (assuming you can keep the scopes working without needing to strip their aiming and stabalization systems, or cooling, or the rest), arn't going to cut it. You have to get direct data from drop probes or samples, preferable bringing some samples home where the better lab gear is. > >>Thats effectivly a suicide mission. I know a few folks in this group >>disagree, or don't care, but it still would meen no government on earth could >>get permision for such a mission. I.E. your throwing away a crew for no >>critical reason. Specifically your doing it to save money, which is really >>not going to sell. > >By your logic, life is a suicide mission. No matter what, you're >going to die somewhere. > >Honestly, if I and others like me were sent on a _2_ way mission, We'd >be more than halfway tempted to disobey orders and simply stay. > >That aside, the crew isn't thrown away. They're simply taking the >"retirement plan" of their choice. How many ships crew, deside to beach their ship and hope they die before it does? Or how many arctic explorers would agree to go knowing they'ld live out their days in those cramped tents or shacks in the ice. Nothing to do but try to stay alive a few days longer. >Anyway, doing something to save money has long been a strong selling >point. That's why Mars pathfinder is this tiny little cart which >can't even send data up to orbit rather than the originally >envisionned self-sufficient rovers bristling with sensors. It's >why Magellan has only the rather limited radar rather than radar, >IR, and optical, and it's why they trashed it into Venus's >atmosphere when it could have continued operating it for years. People don't mind you using expendable equipment and abandoning it when your done, but they get very upset when you do the same to personel. >>>>>As for 2-way vs. 1-way, I gave as an example a .2c cruise speed. >>>>>A 2-way mission at .1c would take at least 80 years to get there >>>>>and back! With current human lifespans, that sounds to me a >>>>>hell of a lot worse than going one way in 20 years and then spending >>>>>the next half century or so basking in the warmth of alien suns. > >>>>I don't follow the numbers. First you state a .2c cruse speed vs a .1. Why >>>>would a 2 way mission use a slower ship? > >>>Because a 1 way mission can go at 1/2 delta-v of a rocket, while a >>>2 way mission can only go at 1/4 delta-v. Alternatively, if beams >>>are used for the acceleration run (and the deceleration run of the >>>return journey), the 1 way mission can go at 100% delta-v, while >>>the 2 way mission can only go at 50% delta-v. > >>The delta-v potential of a ship is related to the fuel mass ratios. The fuel >>mass ratios are exponetial, not linear. I.E. a ship that needs to accelerate >>and decelerat with onboard fuel (Li-6 fusion fuel) needs 400 times the fuel >>load of one that just needs to accelerat or decelerate not both. Or for a 2 >>way unrefueled mission it would need 400^3 as much fuel. > >I didn't say this was using Li-6 fusion fuel. In fact, I didn't >specify the method at all. I did make the tacit assumption that >whatever it was, .2c was pretty much it's practical limit for >the 1 way mission. > >In other words, the 1 way mission at .2c needs a mass ratio so >high that much higher isn't affordable. Let's say the mass ratio >is 10,000. In this case, it's obviously ridiculous to talk about >a 2 way mission at .2c (unrefueled). That would require a mass >ratio of 100,000,000, and increase fuel costs by 10,000. > >Therefore, if we want to talk about a 2 way mission, we've got to >keep the mass ratio about the same. It would have to be a .1c >cruise velocity mission in order to keep the mass ratio about >the same. You math doesn't add up. If you were keeping the fuel ratio the same and assuming an unrefulled round trip you'ld have to square the fuel ration not double it. In anyevent no one waas suggesting a unrefueled return. Also you might note my Explorer system has over a .3 c cruse speed, and the fuel sail has over a .4c cruse speed. .1 or .2c speeds would require flight times of 20-50 years each way. Totally unfeasable. >>>Alpha Centauri includes a binary system. It would indeed take decades >>>to study this system, which is very different from our own. Being >>>on site means being able to rig up whatever equipment is needed to >>>make whatever observations are desired (a 2 way mission could leave >>>behind unmanned probes, but they'd have more limited capabilities and >>>wouldn't be able to react to scientific advances prompting new >>>observations as quickly). > >>Without tools? The systems will wear out and your light years from the >>manufacturing infastructure needed to keep all the stuff working. As a wrough >>guess I'ld expect the transport shuttles and such to burn out in under 20 >>years, and the main ship sensors and systems to be maybe good for 40. > >Transport shuttles? What's the point? You'd want some unmanned >probes so you can get data from multiple points without wasting >months and fuel flitting around (e.g. an orbiting probe to measure >magnetic fields at various distances). > >Most observations, however, could and would be made from the main >ship directly. I'm not sure why you expect the ships sensors and >systems to wear out after only 40 years. Coverd elsewhere by me and others. >>Past >>that your need to strip those systems for pars to regulate life support, >>medical, etc.. > >Huh? Keeping the systems alive will be a matter of repairing them >with spares. There's not much commonality between a CO2 scrubber >and an IR camera. The IR cameras cryo cooler, aiming motors, and electronics could be used in everything from food processors to refrigeration systems, the images might be needed for medical, etc.. >>I.E. you not talking about spending your life studing the starsystem. Most of >>the time your just going to be working to keep the last of the ship (and >>yourselves) alive. > >Most of the time spent on a manned spaceship, at least currently, is >keeping yourself alive. That's a given. But really that's not so >different from life here on Earth (especially if you're a farmer). Very little of the time spent in current life is related to survival. Probably less then 1/5-1/20th (depending on how you figure it). The scientists on the crew would be tyhere to do science and support personel would keep the ship runing. But as the ship deteriorated it would require exponential growth in sevicing, and the science gear, crew, and systems would be droped, or canabalized to service the rest. >-- > _____ Isaac Kuo Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 12:09 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["512" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "14:52:57" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "22" "starship-design: Re:" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA21464 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:09:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.175]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA21396 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:08:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <525a3c29.348ef31c@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 511 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: wnewton@glasscity.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 14:52:57 EST In a message dated 12/9/97 3:00:14 PM, you wrote: >Dear Kelly Starks > > > > What would an engine look like for a matter / anti-matter powered > >ship if we could > >collect and controll anti-matter? Please e-mail me back. Thanks. Depends. Thats like asking what would a oil powered engine look like. Thatr would mean anything from a rocket to a V8 chevy. Check out the book "Mirror Mater" by Robert Forward. It covers a lot ot ideas. Also search the web for antimater rocket concepts. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 12:30 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1182" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "15:26:06" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "25" "RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA04445 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:30:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA04385 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:30:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 15:26:07 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 1181 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 15:26:06 -0500 > ---------- > From: Kelly St[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] > Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) > > We should be able to image thing in the star system down to atleast a > few > meters resoultion from Sol. > Hm. We can only just achieve this resolution of Mars with Global Surveyor (which is in orbit above Mars). I'd be very surprised if we could develop this kind of imaging resolution at interstellar distances any time soon. I'd be more optimistic about resolutions around five orders of magnitude greater (i.e. a few hundred kilometers) by the time we're technically ready to send a first mission - and even this is still well outside our capability. It would be enough, however, to give us basic images of the planets of the target star. It would also allow us to do a variety of spectral experiments. We could also detect the largest asteroids and moons, if we were meticulous. ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 13:23 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["811" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "15:22:47" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "22" "Re: RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA05605 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:23:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA05369 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:22:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA25308; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 15:22:47 -0600 Message-Id: <9712102122.AA25308@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: from "David Levine" at Dec 10, 97 10:43:35 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 810 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: david@actionworld.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 15:22:47 -0600 (CST) David Levine wrote: >Right. In the original concept for this design group, we were assuming >some extremely pressing reason-to-go had come up. I can't imagine any extremely pressing reason to go which would also give enough time to develop interstellar travel capability. >I think the >assumption was the remote detection of life-bearing planets in the >target system, with a potential mission receiving large amounts of >popular support. That wouldn't be an extremely pressing reason to go, unless that life included intelligent life which are developing or have developed their own interstellar travel capability. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 13:31 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1564" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "15:31:16" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "37" "starship-design: Re: StarShip Design: Request and Questions" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA11265 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:31:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA11105 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:31:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA25738; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 15:31:17 -0600 Message-Id: <9712102131.AA25738@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <78fc1d97.348ec4ec@aol.com> from "Gertchen1@aol.com" at Dec 10, 97 11:35:54 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1563 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Gertchen1@aol.com Cc: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: StarShip Design: Request and Questions Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 15:31:16 -0600 (CST) Gertchen1@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 97-12-10 10:33:57 EST, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu writes: >Huh? We don't have _any_ current deceleration rocket system suitable >for a .2c mission. The rocket systems we do have aren't even remotely >like what would be used for such a mission. >If a starship is constructed in space, then there should be a major decrease >in the amount of fuel it requires. Not exactly. If a starship could take off from Earth at all, then it would require a very small delta-v capability compared to the delta-v required to reach .1c. What construction in space gains you is that you don't have to make a space ship that can handle being in Earth's atmosphere and flying through it. And us Earthlings don't have to try and live with the exhaust from the thing (lots of radiation). >Perhaps, with a crew of fifty, and the ship being about a mile in >length, an entire deck rich with oxygen giving plants and a routine >filling of oxygen tanks would be sufficient. Hydroponic algae do offer a potentially robust air recycling system, but this would require new research to develop into a working model. There's not enough data yet to know how effective and reliable this would be. It is a low risk technology, though. >Since >I am writing a book, I am on the quest for starship designs, mostly warships. >Any designs would be appreciated ^_^ -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 13:35 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2458" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "16:30:29" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "56" "RE: RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA13040 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:35:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA13024 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:35:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:30:30 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 2457 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: RE: RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:30:29 -0500 > ---------- > From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu[SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] > Subject: Re: RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) > > David Levine wrote: > > >Right. In the original concept for this design group, we were > assuming > >some extremely pressing reason-to-go had come up. > > I can't imagine any extremely pressing reason to go which would also > give enough time to develop interstellar travel capability. > > >I think the > >assumption was the remote detection of life-bearing planets in the > >target system, with a potential mission receiving large amounts of > >popular support. > > That wouldn't be an extremely pressing reason to go, unless that > life included intelligent life which are developing or have > developed their own interstellar travel capability. > It doesn't matter if you believe that is not an extremely pressing reason to go. You need to assume the organization (probably government, but not necessarily) requiring a starship design believes it to be so. You see, we wished to discuss what it would take to get to a nearby star (actually, the original idea was Tau Ceti or Barnard's Star, both more likely to have planets than Alpha Centauri, but significantly further away) in the relatively near future. We recognized at the time there would need to be some sort of reason for this to occur. We weren't as concerned with the reason itself, just given the requirements of designing a workable system soon, how would one go about doing it? If you feel that the reason we used is not pressing, fine. It doesn't matter. It was hoped that using this assumption would allow us to have some frame of reference for discussions. In fact, it does help you decide what kind of equipment to bring and what kind of mission you would expect to perform once there. Ultra-long-baseline astrometry doesn't always cut it. But you're right, there's no believable reason to go, so let's not even make such assumptions to discuss it with. Thought experiments suck. I agree with Isaac and say we should end this and disband. After all, with no pressing reason to design a starship, I see no pressing reason to discuss designing a starship. ;-/ ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 14:10 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["11606" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "16:10:27" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "249" "Re: starship-design: Re: Re: debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA09671 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 14:10:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA09360 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 14:10:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA27973; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:10:27 -0600 Message-Id: <9712102210.AA27973@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: from "Kelly St" at Dec 10, 97 02:53:03 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 11605 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Re: debate Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:10:27 -0600 (CST) Kelly St wrote: >In a message dated 12/9/97 11:55:52 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>>>>Beyond that plannig on such systems in the next 50 years is highly >>>>>conservative even by the standrads of commercial investors. >>>>Commercial investors take amazing risks all the time. They need to >>>>do so in order to make their overall profits. That is the nature >>>>of investment. Given the current profitability of the stock market >>>>compared to bonds, I would have thought that obvious. >>>Commercial investors never take amazing risks. Their entire focus >>>is to avoid amazing risks. >>Untrue. They regularly invest large sums of money on speculations >>which may fail, and when it's other people's money it can make big >>news when the bet fails. >All investments are risks. "amazing risks" suggests an unusually high risk They are unusually high, in that the average middle income investor can not afford to take them. >>The larger the sums of money, the more risk investors take. On one >>end of the spectrum are personal savings, which require a low risk >>strategy in order to save up retirement funds safely. On the other >>end of the spectrum is Bill Gates, who has so much money to spare >>that he can afford to risk most of his eggs in one basket--his own >>company--because it is the most profitable place to put it. There's >>maybe a 5% chance that a some "disaster" will cripple Microsoft >>stock--that's too much of a risk for anyone to put their entire >>retirement savings into Microsoft stock alone, but Bill Gates can >>afford to put the vast majority of his money in Microsoft stock >>because even in the worst case what remains is plenty. >No, thats not what risks mean. Gates invests in MS stock because it gives him >more control in his company and because (as you stated above ["There's maybe a >5% chance that a some "disaster" will cripple Microsoft"]) its a very low risk >investment. I state 5% as a bare minimum, because that's already an unacceptably high risk for the average investor. Do you want to have a 1 in 20 chance of losing all of your life savings, as well as your job (which is what investing in the company you work for is risking)? Bill Gates is extremely paranoid and cutthroat in his business practices because he's seen first hand how volatile the computer industry is and how no one is assured to stay on top. He's well aware that a single slip up could be all it takes to permanently cripple a computer company, like IBM or Apple. Microsoft stock is a high risk investment, but it has a very high expected return. >>>>>>Something _might_ be discovered in the next millenia which will lead >>>>>>to fantastic increases in space propulsion beyond the theoretical >>>>>>anti-matter rocket. If so, I'll bet it won't look anything like >>>>>>anything we've imagined. >>>So your comment that "Something _might_ be discovered in the next millenia >>>which will lead to fantastic increases in space propulsion..." is >>>statistacally far to conservative. >>No, I don't think so. >>Sure, something will lead to fantastic increases in space propulsion >>compared to TODAY's technology. But look carefully at what I say. >>I say, "Something _might_ be discovered ... which will lead to >>fantastic increases ... beyond the theoretical anti-matter rocket." >>Beyond the theoretical anti-matter rocket. >>I have great confidence that for interstellar travel something on >>the level of a theoretical anti-matter rocket or less will remain >>the best we can hope for in the next millenia. The physics of >>relativity and conservation of energy strongly suggest this. >The physics of relativity and conservation of energy have only been developted >in the last century. Conservation of energy has been around for longer than that, and the physics of relativity did not invalidate most of the predictions made by classical mechanics. What relativity did was it explained a lot of phenomena which didn't quite fit classical mechanics. The critical difference between classical mechanics and general relativity is that there were a lot of natural phenomena which didn't fit classical mechanics, and there are NO phenomena (natural or manmade) which don't fit general relativity. We might observe some phenomena which don't, but we've pushed the bounds to near light velocities and haven't found anything inconsistent with it yet. >They are not the end of physics research, nore are they likely to >be the ultimate form of power or rocket physics. I disagree. I think general relativity and conservation of energy will stand forever as limiting factors to technology. The degree to which we understand the motion of heavenly bodies is fundamentally different from any period in history, because with general relativity we acquired for the first time the ability to explain _all_ observed motion. The principle of conservation of energy is a principle which has less direct predictive power, but it's one which has stood the test of time despite changes in our understanding of physics. >Research into >newer physics, capable of far greater power, performance, etc (zero point >energy, inertia/mass damping, etc) has progressed to the degree that NASA is >funding some conferences and studies on them. We will always look for ways around what we know, and research into zero point energy and cold fusion is very inexpensive to conduct. That doesn't mean there's any credibility to any of it. >So I would estimate that the odds that current physics (like >the physics of relativity and conservation of energy, or mass >conversion rockets) will not be greatly surpassed in the next >century, are about nil (assuming no colapse of civilization). If you honestly think so, then why do you care at all about this starship design list's concept? According to your thinking, there is no chance that anything we come up with will be anything even remotely like what would be worth sending to the stars. The predictive power of general relativity is simply too much better than what came before, and too heavily tested and confirmed by hostile scientists, to put it on the same level as what came before. >>>>>>You were looking to avoid a mere 160,000-1 fuel ratio? In favor >>>>>>of a 400-1 fuel ratio? Just how lightweight did you think the >>>>>>microwave satellites were going to be? Show me numbers. Power-weight >>>>>>ratios. Desired output thrust. I'll bet that given any reasonable >>>>>>numbers, you'll find that the mass of the microwave emitter satellites >>>>>>will end up weighing more than 400 times the sailship. >>>Mass comparisons are rather irrelavent. The cost of an ore, vrs a >>>manufactured systems vary wildly, and are not liniarly related to mass. >>Yes, they vary wildly--but in all cases the cost of the manufactured >>system is more than the cost of the raw materials used to manufacture >>it. This should be obvious. >>The costs of various raw materials may differ, but fusion rocket >>fuel (Deuterium and possibly Hydrogen; D-D fusion is trivial if >>we have Li6-H fusion) will very likely always costs less than >>the metals/composites used to manufacture beam satellites. >Deuterium, He3 and other exotic issotopes is extreamly rare and difficult to >aguire, so its cost per pound could be hundreds to thousands of times as much >as Li-6, and likely to cost far more pound for pound they an equal weight of >solar power sat, much less they the equivelant weight of silicon, iron, or >aluminum (the major materials for solar power sats). Deuterium is not rare. He3 is, but deuterium is not. >>Huh? Advantage over what? A dispersed phased array system can't >>be adapted to longer range without significant modification. What >>_can_ be done is to increase it's efficiency by bunching it up >>together as tightly as possible, ideally shoulder-to-shoulder. >>The only thing you gain by dispersing them over a wide area is... >>you don't gain anything, actually. At every range, the beam >>produced by the tightly bunched up array is superior to the >>beam produced by the widely dispersed array. >You gain increased range due to the larger virtual lens from the array. NO YOU DO NOT!!!!!!!! YOU DO NOT INCREASE RANGE BY EVEN A SINGLE MILLIMETER. The larger virtual lens size is exactly counteracted by the reduced efficiency. In other words, if you get a spot which is 1/10 the area, it will also have 1/10 the beam energy. You haven't gained anything. OTOH, you have _lost_ 9/10's of the theoretical optimum beam (the optimum beam is if the elements are bunched up shoulder to shoulder). Kelly, try and comprehend this one fact, if nothing else. The widely spaced array gains you NOTHING. >>>>The possible reuse of the lasers is particularly notable if it is >>>>reused in a single mission (e.g. sequencially launching multiple >>>>modules which provide deceleration fuel). >>>>However, the possible reuse of lasers for marketable power generation >>>>is, IMO, dubious. First, there has to be a market for that amount >>>>of power. >>>Presumably for large scale industrial operations in space, such as non near >>>earth asteropid work and transport. But agreed, this is speculative. >>The only serious use for them I can imagine is for laser powered >>rocket transport. Assuming nuclear reactors remain expensive and/or >>fission materials remain restricted, laser powered rockets offer >>great potential savings in rocket costs. >>For any sort of heavy industrial work where it's worth putting a >>high power refinery on site, it's also worth putting its power >>source on site. Beamed power really only offers a potential >>advantage in cases where the power is only needed a small fraction >>of the time (which is the case for rockets). >Since the refineries and propulsion platforms would need to relocate around >asteroidal space, being able to buy a couple months powe without shipping a >power plant to the site could make a lot of economic sence. These refineries are likely to mass a lot more than their power source, so if it's worth moving the refinery on site, it's not much of a marginal cost to bring its power source along as well. (The alternative is moving the asteroid to a refinery, which is an example of rocket power--which I already describe as a valid potential use for beamed power, if nuclear rockets are restricted.) >>>>Third, in this example we >>>>assume fusion power is available for the deceleration leg. If that's >>>>the case, then who's going to bother buying beam power? >>>I can't follow this bit. >>The affordability of the powerful deceleration leg fusion rocket >>(that we can afford it at all) suggests we have similar fusion >>power generation capability which is relatively affordable. >>Given the plentiful inexpensive energy everywhere, who's going >>to need beam power? >Saying you have fision power, does not mean its the cheapest form of power, >nor the cheapest way to get power to a remote area. We have nuclear powe >plants, but still fire foundrys with coal. It might not be the cheapest--but if it's not then something else is the cheapest and it's cheaper than the relatively affordable fusion power this starship design postulates. Given that we can afford the incredibly powerful deceleration leg rocket at all, it suggests there's a lot of inexpensive energy from _some_ source, if not necessarily fusion. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 15:19 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["930" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "18:08:15" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "28" "Re: RE: RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA05978 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 15:19:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.176]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA05907 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 15:19:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5fbf0d2e.348f20e1@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 929 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: david@actionworld.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 18:08:15 EST In a message dated 12/10/97 2:24:39 PM, david@actionworld.com wrote: >> ---------- >> From: Kelly St[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] >> Subject: Re: RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) >> >> flights to other stars might be fundable.) But beyond that credible >> reasons >> are near nil. >> >Right. In the original concept for this design group, we were assuming >some extremely pressing reason-to-go had come up. I think the >assumption was the remote detection of life-bearing planets in the >target system, with a potential mission receiving large amounts of >popular support. >------------------------------------------------------ >David Levine Oh, yeah. I forgot. That actually might work. A few people at NASA have mentioned the publics interest in space would be much stronger if we found something like cannals on Mars and a lost civilization, or wild life racing through a swampy Venus or something. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 15:28 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1229" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "00:26:17" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "29" "Re: starship-design: What is savest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA12743 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 15:28:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA12609 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 15:28:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-016.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xfvYO-001W3wC; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 00:28:32 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1228 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: What is savest? Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 00:26:17 +0100 To Kelly, >>In short, I'm not so much wondering what is cheaper, but more about what is >>saver. Or to put is less subjective: What has a bigger chance of succeeding? > >Actually because staying in place requires you stay longer, and thus need more >suplies, repairs, etc. I do think the 2-way would be cheaper, smaller, and >more relyable. I hope you assume that for a 2-way mission the fuel/energy for the return trip comes from the target system. If not, then you probably can carry more than enough supplies instead of the fuel for the return trip. So assuming we get the fuel in the target system, there has to be some not so small unit (probably multiple units) that mines asteroids or planets for fuel. For a one-way mission that not so small unit can be replaced by many small specialized units that can be used for all (un)thinkable repairs. >In our case the engines are actually not a big factor. You need the full set >of engines to decel into the system, or you'ld overshoot. On a boost back, if >some of the engines fail, you drop them and burn the others longer until you >use up the rest of the fuel. This assumes we have multiple engines. But OK, that about the engines was just a whim of mine. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 15:42 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["19740" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "17:42:41" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "444" "Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA24103 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 15:42:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA23976 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 15:42:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00980; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:42:41 -0600 Message-Id: <9712102342.AA00980@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: from "Kelly St" at Dec 10, 97 02:53:14 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 19739 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:42:41 -0600 (CST) Kelly St wrote: >In a message dated 12/9/97 12:55:55 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>>It is statistically certain to fail. I.E. if you are asking a >>>systems to work longer then the average mean time to failure of >>>its parts, it will fail without the replacement of those parts. >>No it won't. The average mean time is an average. The part might >>fail before, or it might fail later. It could fail today. It >>could fail in a century. >The mean unrepaired service life of a systems is less then the mtbf of any of >its parts. The higher percentage of parts with MTBF less then the desired >service life, the higher liklyhood failure before then. Yes, it may be more than 50% likely--but it's not certain. It will not absolutely certainly necessarily happen, which is what you wrote (see "...it will fail..."). >>But there's no inherent reason why we would ask the systems to >>work longer than their average mean time to failure. We can >>bring spares to replace systems before they wear down dangerously. >Assuming the spare can last that long on the shelf, and you can carry that >many extras. Yes, assuming that. But there is no _inherent_ reason why those assumptions can never be satisfied. Try and remember. I am arguing that there is no inherent reason why the crew of a 1-way mission starship would necessarily die prematurely. In case you don't know what "inherent" means--X is inherent in Y if and only if the existence of Y logically implies X. >>>If the parts are primary structure (remember we'll be shaving >>>weight margines to get the thing flying) you need major shipyard >>>facilities. >>I don't think we'll be shaving weight. Even at .2c, the >>thing has _got_ to last at least 20 years or the whole endeavor >>wasn't worth a damn. >True I was suggesting a service life goal for a 2 way ship at 40 years, which >seems a streach, but probably doable. But adding a few decades on the end >would significantly cut you odds. 40 years? You mean we're just going to go there and immediately come back? Now _that_ sounds like a sad waste. But then again, you are also assuming twice the delta-v capability, which could blow up the fuel costs a thousandfold or more. >>>>>Normal systems on that scale usually burn out after 40-50 years. >>>>>Given the lack of replacement parts (stored parts also don't last >>>>>forever), >>>>They don't have to last forever. They just have to last several >>>>decades. >>>Many can't last a few years on the shelf. >>Like what? The mission critical systems are: >>1. The deceleration rocket systems. These have to last 2 decades >> and there's little margin for spares. However, after that >> they are no longer mission critical. >Given they rockets are only need to decel into the system and later burn out >of it back to Sol. They reallu only need to work for a couple months to >years, and be storable in hard vac for a couple decades. I am talking about shelf life. Reread the text I quoted. It says, "Many can't last a few years on the shelf". >Actually since you need all engines working to brake you into >the system, but can take as long as you like to burn you way >back up to speed on the way back, the return boost can afford >for most of the engines to fail or be dumped. Huh? It's symmetric. You can afford many of your braking engines to fail during "storage"--you just need to start your deceleration run earlier. Naturally, you will start the run early enough so that you have room to spare in case some engines fail during the braking run. For the return journey, OTOH, you can't just take as long as you like. You need to get back before your supplies run out, and losing most of your engines could result in extending your acceleration run several decades, assuming you somehow (how?) refuel in system. If you're not refueling in system, then you can afford only a few rockets remaining for your return acceleration because of the greatly reduced mass relaxing thrust requirements. If you are refueling in system in a fuel/sail like starship, then the mass during the deceleration run and the return acceleration run are equivalent. Losses in rockets in either leg have the same effect on extending the mission time. If you are refueling in system in a pure rocket starship, then you can ill afford much loss in rockets because of the greatly _increased_ mass compared to during the deceleration run. Engine failures for the deceleration and return acceleration runs will both extend the mission time. >>2. Oxygen recycling and CO2 scrubbers. At least with current >> technology, they have a limited expected life span, but >> they are relatively lightwieght so many spares can be >> carried. I'm not sure about their shelf life. >Scrubbers wouldn't work, but we could synthasis the ox out of water in the >air. (Odd bit of matabolism I found. The ox we breathing winds up in the >water we excreat, the ox in the CO2 comes from other sources. weird.) Not really. That's the way respiration works. >>3. Water recycling. I'm not sure about this part. >Boil it to steam and condese it out. Replace burned out reaction chambers >every few years(?). Foutunately stainless steel is plantifull in asteroids. Stainless steel isn't plentiful anywhere except maybe landfills. It has to be refined. This is something where spares will have to be brought, but these spares should last practically forever in storage. >>4. Food storage. Irradiated canned food will easily last a couple >> hundred years. >The containers arn't likely to last for centuries! In low pressure storage hermetically sealed in inert gas? I don't see why not. >>5. Spare parts to repair hull problems. Aluminum nuts, bolts, >> welding solder, and wrenches in vacuum storage practically last >> forever. Arc welders also last practically forever since they're >> relatively simple devices easy to repair. >>6. Spare solar panels and electrical components. Last prctically >> forever in storage. >Electrical and electronic systems tend to degrade to junk after a few years on >the shelf. They actually last longer ion use then stored in many cases. I haven't found this to be the case with the junk we have in my robotics lab, a lot of which has sat unused for easily a decade. They've been through a lot, too. We have horrible humidity problems which rusts _everything_ (all of my tools are in sad shape). Some of this junk has come from junk heaps in even worse condition; not even temperature controlled. However, it amazes me how everything on all these circuit boards still work. Even the servos and stepper motors work. >>Really, the only mission critical items which I can see having >>a problem with storage life are the recycling systems, which >>might require somewhat chemically active components. >Anything that will chemically react with its storage environment, or itself, >will degrade in storage. Thats why everything from drugs to batteries has an >experation date on it. As Lee mentioned even plastics on the shelf break >down. Circutry components (like the inside of an IC chip) chemically react to >consume themselves on the shelf. Storing things at cryo in nitrogen helps, >but the chill down can destroy the internal structure of material or >components. I don't think cryogenic storage is a practical option for most of these things. However, I think the problem with things degrading is overstated. Most of the things we make which fall apart on their own accord are made so cheaply because there's no reason to make them last. >>>>Why would the crew be wearing out? We'd be getting old after a >>>>while, but at that point it would be getting less and less >>>>important to have the equipment last much longer. >>>It has to keep working for the crew to keep living. If it >>>needs repair NOW, you can't just hope it woun't fail for >>>a decade or two for the last crewman to die. It almost >>>certainly will fail in months to years. >>Why would it almost certainly fail in months or years? Exactly >>what mission critical components are certain to fail, even with >>triple redundancy? (If there's only one or two crew left, >>the life support systems will be well below capacity.) >How many months with out service would you expect your car to keep runing >after the check engine light comes on? Not too long, but if I have 5 cars I can live with one of them breaking down. Remember, we're talking about the last one or two survivors living in a habitat designed for at least a dozen. That leaves a lot of room for redundancy. >Why do you think ship and subs keep >such large maintenece crews, and airplaces often need days of support crew >time for every hour they fly. This stuff takes a beating. And if any of the >parts cut out, the system starts to fail. Yes, that stuff takes a beating. They're combat machines that have to directly compete with their own kind. This starship isn't some combat machine, and it's going to take things nice and slow. >If you don't fix things they stop working, and as the crew gets >smaller, their are fewer of them to fix all the stuff they need >to stay alive. I.E. most everything in the ship! When there's a full crew, most everything in the ship (outside of spares and the propulsion systems) is needed to keep the crew alive. When there's half the crew left, there's double redundancy (assuming spares have lasted at least this long). When there's a quarter of the crew left, there's still double redundancy even if half the ship has failed. >>>Your sending people out to to a decade or two of work (at most until the >>>exploration gear become unservicable) and then sit in the deralic ship until >>>they die. >>Why would the exploration gear become unservicable so quickly? >>At the very least, we can expect handheld optical telescopes >>to last hundreds of years. Even that alone, at such a close >>range, is enough to do serious scientific observations impossible >>from the Solar System. (Even if we figured out a way to make >>astronomically huge optical telescopes able to equal their >>resolution, we could not make fine corona observations since >>we'd lack the ability to shade out the photosphere.) >Actually telescopes arn't worth sending, you can see the systems perfectly >well from here with a big enough scope. FAR easier to build a scope here with >a synthetic apiture a few light secounds across, rather then keep a 1 meter >scope working a few light years from home. You won't be able to easily shade the photosphere. >Yes you can shade out the photosphere from here, especially from space. With your "synthetic aperture" telescope, you'd need a shade at least the size of your synthetic aperture and it would have to be placed in interstellar space between the target star and your telescope system (it has to appear the same size as the target star). >Or, you could use electronic imaging systems that can see the corona >without blocking the photosphere. Doesn't work with LBI. >No observation studies (assuming you can keep the scopes working without >needing to strip their aiming and stabalization systems, or cooling, or the >rest), arn't going to cut it. You have to get direct data from drop probes or >samples, preferable bringing some samples home where the better lab gear is. Samples? Samples of what? Sure, there _might_ be planetoids around Alpha Centauri. But those can be visited directly with the ship, if need be. Big planets with significant gravitational fields would present a problem, but there's no reason for us to currently expect any such things orbiting there. Binary star systems don't make for too many stable orbits. >>>Thats effectivly a suicide mission. I know a few folks in this group >>>disagree, or don't care, but it still would meen no government on earth >could >>>get permision for such a mission. I.E. your throwing away a crew for no >>>critical reason. Specifically your doing it to save money, which is really >>>not going to sell. >>By your logic, life is a suicide mission. No matter what, you're >>going to die somewhere. >>Honestly, if I and others like me were sent on a _2_ way mission, We'd >>be more than halfway tempted to disobey orders and simply stay. >>That aside, the crew isn't thrown away. They're simply taking the >>"retirement plan" of their choice. >How many ships crew, deside to beach their ship and hope they die before it >does? How is this question relevant? No oceangoing ship ever built is even remotely like the starships we're discussing. >Or how many arctic explorers would agree to go knowing they'ld live out >their days in those cramped tents or shacks in the ice. Nothing to do but try >to stay alive a few days longer. The arctic is frankly a pretty boring place. Alpha Centauri is pretty exciting place. >>Anyway, doing something to save money has long been a strong selling >>point. That's why Mars pathfinder is this tiny little cart which >>can't even send data up to orbit rather than the originally >>envisionned self-sufficient rovers bristling with sensors. It's >>why Magellan has only the rather limited radar rather than radar, >>IR, and optical, and it's why they trashed it into Venus's >>atmosphere when it could have continued operating it for years. >People don't mind you using expendable equipment and abandoning it when your >done, but they get very upset when you do the same to personel. These people aren't being abandonned. >>>>>>As for 2-way vs. 1-way, I gave as an example a .2c cruise speed. >>>>>>A 2-way mission at .1c would take at least 80 years to get there >>>>>>and back! With current human lifespans, that sounds to me a >>>>>>hell of a lot worse than going one way in 20 years and then spending >>>>>>the next half century or so basking in the warmth of alien suns. >>>>>I don't follow the numbers. First you state a .2c cruse speed vs a .1. >Why >>>>>would a 2 way mission use a slower ship? >>>>Because a 1 way mission can go at 1/2 delta-v of a rocket, while a >>>>2 way mission can only go at 1/4 delta-v. Alternatively, if beams >>>>are used for the acceleration run (and the deceleration run of the >>>>return journey), the 1 way mission can go at 100% delta-v, while >>>>the 2 way mission can only go at 50% delta-v. >>>The delta-v potential of a ship is related to the fuel mass ratios. The >fuel >>>mass ratios are exponetial, not linear. I.E. a ship that needs to >accelerate >>>and decelerat with onboard fuel (Li-6 fusion fuel) needs 400 times the fuel >>>load of one that just needs to accelerat or decelerate not both. Or for a 2 >>>way unrefueled mission it would need 400^3 as much fuel. >>I didn't say this was using Li-6 fusion fuel. In fact, I didn't >>specify the method at all. I did make the tacit assumption that >>whatever it was, .2c was pretty much it's practical limit for >>the 1 way mission. >>In other words, the 1 way mission at .2c needs a mass ratio so >>high that much higher isn't affordable. Let's say the mass ratio >>is 10,000. In this case, it's obviously ridiculous to talk about >>a 2 way mission at .2c (unrefueled). That would require a mass >>ratio of 100,000,000, and increase fuel costs by 10,000. >>Therefore, if we want to talk about a 2 way mission, we've got to >>keep the mass ratio about the same. It would have to be a .1c >>cruise velocity mission in order to keep the mass ratio about >>the same. >You math doesn't add up. If you were keeping the fuel ratio the same and >assuming an unrefulled round trip you'ld have to square the fuel ration not >double it. WHAT!!!!???!!!?!!!??!???????!!!!!???? What you just wrote makes no sense at all. You write "If you were keeping the fuel ratio the same and assuming an unrefulled round trip you'ld have to square the fuel ration not double it." In short you say that in order to keep the fuel ratio the same you'd have to square the fuel ratio. Please, Kelly, try and get a thought straight in your head before sending it out onto the mailing list. My math is precisely correct. Your rebuttal isn't even coherent. My claim is that the cruise velocities are halved, if you keep the fuel ratio the same (and don't refuel). >Also you might note my Explorer system has over a .3 c cruse speed, and the >fuel sail has over a .4c cruse speed. .1 or .2c speeds would require flight >times of 20-50 years each way. Totally unfeasable. A 20 year 1-way trip is what we're discussing. The tacit assumption is that a faster cruise speed is unavailable. Assuming a straight fusion rocket like a highly refined MagOrion, a delta-v limit of .4c (which implies a cruise speed of .1c) is rather reasonable. This assumes the fusion rocket comes within an order of magnitude of the theoretical maximum. Honestly, I'd be half tempted to go on a .1c 1-way trip (40 years). I picked .2c since it was fast enough so that I would _jump_ at the opportunity to go. >>>Past >>>that your need to strip those systems for pars to regulate life support, >>>medical, etc.. >>Huh? Keeping the systems alive will be a matter of repairing them >>with spares. There's not much commonality between a CO2 scrubber >>and an IR camera. >The IR cameras cryo cooler, aiming motors, and electronics could be used in >everything from food processors to refrigeration systems, the images might be >needed for medical, etc.. It's theoretically possible to share those components, but entirely impractical once you look at the differences between the systems. A cryogenic cooler designed to cool a small space to 5 degrees K isn't going to be much like a refrigerator designed to cool a large space to 5 degrees Fahrenheit. The micrometer stepping motors for slowly slewing a camera with minimum vibration are radically different from a brushless DC motor designed to run an air pump. About the only common electronics components would be assorted resistors, capacitors, and microcontrollers, but you're going to have thousands of these in storage. The camera itself is designed for focus at infinity, which is very different from anything you'd want for medical imaging... >>Most of the time spent on a manned spaceship, at least currently, is >>keeping yourself alive. That's a given. But really that's not so >>different from life here on Earth (especially if you're a farmer). >Very little of the time spent in current life is related to survival. >Probably less then 1/5-1/20th (depending on how you figure it). Most people work at least 40 hours a week, and spend maybe 8 hours a week just eating. Not counting 8 hours a day for sleeping (which, if anything, counts towards time used up surviving), that's 43% of the time. If you're a farmer, then you probably spend a lot more time working. >The scientists on the crew would be tyhere to do science and >support personel would keep the ship runing. At least for the cruise leg, everyone on board would be there to keep the ship running, but it should be easy going early on. At the target system, everyone on board should be there to "do science". Even someone completely unfamiliar with astronomy at the beginning of the mission could learn as much about astronomy as any PhD in 20 years. >But as the ship deteriorated it would require >exponential growth in sevicing, and the science gear, crew, and >systems would be droped, or canabalized to service the rest. As I stated before, the ship would be maintained with replacement parts, rather than canabalizing components. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 15:57 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5400" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "17:56:56" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "116" "Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA04127 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 15:57:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA04007 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 15:56:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA01359; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:56:56 -0600 Message-Id: <9712102356.AA01359@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: from "Kelly St" at Dec 10, 97 02:53:18 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 5399 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:56:56 -0600 (CST) Kelly St wrote: >In a message dated 12/9/97 1:15:09 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>L. Parker wrote: >>>Several months ago I made the statement that there is more incentive to >>>stay in space where power is cheap, resources are plentiful and >>>(comparatively) easy to get at. So I really have a hard time seeing why >>>anyone would want to go to another star just to _settle_ on a planet. >>Resources on a planet are much more plentiful than in space, and >>much easier to get at (for the inhabitants). Furthermore, building >>habitats on a planet is much simpler than in space, because you get >>radiation and space debris shielding for free. >Actually most of our richest ore vains are from old crashed asteroids. Not all resources are ore veins. Here on Earth, there are resources like sand, bricks, water, and air--none of which are more plentiful in ore veins. >Materials inspace are FAR more avalible, and orders of magnitude higher in >purity. Stainless steel for example can be mined in almost finished alloy >form, oil and petrochemicals can be scooped up by the montain load etc. In order to build a habitat, you have a lot more diverse resources than just something to build a big tin can. A place to live can be built out of rock, or cement. The primary other things you need to live are oxygen and hydrogen. On some planets this is a problem, but on others it isn't. >Space is nowe considered a far more viable location for an industrial soceity >then any planet. Read some of the old O'neil books. Ah, never trust anything you read in a book. >>>If you bear that in mind, and look at the mission profile as one that is >>>designed to begin building an outpost in orbit in that system for the >>>purpose of continuing exploration and creating a spaceborne infrastructure >>>for follow on missions, only some of which might be concerned with actually >>>landing on a planet, then it is not a one way mission. Nor is it exactly a >>>colonization mission. >>IMO, this mission is still too ambitious for a first manned mission. >>A first manned mission cannot expect to get _any_ resources from the >>target system, because that first system will be the planetless Alpha >>Centauri system. >How do you know their are no planets? We certainly have no more then guess >work to go by know. There _might_ be planets, but we don't have any reason to expect there are any. What's more, we have a good reason to expect that a binary star system will swallow up anything like a planetoid due to eventual collision with one of the stars unless it is either very close to one of the stars or very far from both. >Further if the system was empty their would be no reason >to send an expidition. Yes there would be. We have the opportunity to seriously study a star system radically different from our own. Doing so will bootstrap our knowledge of innumerable other star systems. >>I don't think an unmanned flyby probe would be able to find usable >>resources even if they were there to be found (because it would >>lack the human creativity to recognize and scientificaly interpret >>something unexpected). With the 8 year two-way time delays, I >>don't think an unmanned 1-way probe would work out either. >>If there are resources to be exploited, then a 1-way manned mission >>is the way to find it. >You want to send people on a expidition dependant on local material, before >you know their are anylocal materials!!!! Thats crazy! At least the >Kamakazis knew there were americans to die killing. By your statments you >expect to send a crew and possibly have them get there find nothing their to >look at or use? They are not dependant on local material, and their primary purpose is not to look for resources. However, it's a good secondary purpose, because they are our best means of determining if any resources are available. >>>It is a team of scientists, and engineers and technicians with a definite >>>purpose - build a fully self sustaining outpost in orbit around another >>>star. Once they have done that they can then build power stations to >>>produce more fuel so that 2-way travel becomes more practicable. >>I think that we can send them there with the hope that they'll find >>something they can turn into something useful, but trying to build >>power stations from the hydrogen and helium of Alpha Centauran >>solar winds is trying to squeeze water out of graphite. >>Our best hope would be if their Oort clouds had useful substances >>and/or there are unexpected useful planetoids. I don't think we'd >>be able to get more than a cursory glance at these things before >>going there ourselves, though. >We should be able to image thing in the star system down to atleast a few >meters resoultion from Sol. Unlikely. Even if we managed to get VLBI working at visible wavelengths, LBI and VLBI do not increase sensetivity. This causes severe problems for searching for planetoids in the Alpha Centauri system, because if there are any they are either so close to a star that they are lost in the glare or they are so far from both stars that they aren't very bright. Furthermore, low albedo surfaces will imply even lower brightness. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 16:04 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1344" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "18:04:24" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "32" "Re: Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA09802 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:04:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA09581 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:04:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA01569; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 18:04:25 -0600 Message-Id: <9712110004.AA01569@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <18c2c029.348ef333@aol.com> from "Kelly St" at Dec 10, 97 02:53:21 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1343 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 18:04:24 -0600 (CST) Kelly St wrote: >I deliberately refure to them as "suicide" missions for two reason. First to >emphasis that that is how they will be perceved as by the public. Only if the public is like you (and remains like you). The public may have a different attitude. >Secound because I beleve the odds of outliving the dieing ships >systems decrease exponetially as you significantly extend the >mission length. In order to perform a 2-way mission, you have to double how long it takes to reach the target system, and this is also how much time it takes to get back. In the case of a .2c 1-way mission, the one way mission lasts perhaps 60 years (about the time the crew die of old age). In the case of a .1c 2-way mission (this uses equivalent technology), the mission lasts perhaps 60 years (about the time the crew die of old age). They can't live the 80 years it takes to get there and back. In the case of a .2c 2-way mission (this uses more advanced technology), the mission lasts perhaps 50 years (10 years in system). >The later can be compensated for by an exponential >increase in ship suplies and crew resources, but the later is unchangable. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 16:09 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1239" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "18:09:12" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "32" "Re: starship-design: Re: debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA13321 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:09:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA13161 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:09:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA01666; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 18:09:12 -0600 Message-Id: <9712110009.AA01666@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: from "Kelly St" at Dec 10, 97 02:53:23 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1238 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: debate Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 18:09:12 -0600 (CST) Kelly St wrote: >In a message dated 12/9/97 11:37:12 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>Look. I've never written anything here with any contradictions, >>obvious or otherwise. You just have an incredible capacity to >>misread, misinterpret, and/or unjustifiably assume things. The >>most aggravating thing about trying to discuss anything with you >>is your inability to comprehend precisely what's written and >>the way you inject straw-men which aren't even hinted at. >I.E. your not being unclear, I'm just to stupid to understand what your >talking about? Try again. Maybe you are too stupid. After all, you yourself just wrote: Or, you could try describing your system, in >detail, and list why you think it would save significant power, and I'll >comment on it. That's what I did with my very first post on it. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 17:23 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1312" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "18:59:09" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "37" "RE: starship-design: Re: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA07940 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:23:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA07918 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:23:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p27.gnt.com [204.49.68.232]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA08943; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 19:23:14 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 19:23:10 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD05A1.0D3E4460.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1311 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Kelly St'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: One way (again...) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 18:59:09 -0600 On Wednesday, December 10, 1997 1:53 PM, Kelly St [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: > The deep space probes like Pioneer, Viking, and Voyager had multi decade > service lives. Thou thie trivially simple compare to these ships. Oh don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we can't design a small system to operate for 20 years without failure. Only that the bigger the system gets the less likely that we can engineer EVERY part to those tolerances and the more likely that cumulative failures of subsystems will eventually add up to major system failure. We have had quite a history of such failures already in the space program. > Oo, excelent example. I forgot about material decays in plastics. Isaac still hasn't thought about it... > Excelant point. One possible siolution for a star ship would be solder > joints > on all seals. If you want to rotate something, you heat the joints until > they > melt, rotate them, then cool and resolder the joint. > > Still would leak out all the air every few years thou. Ox and CO2 isn't a > big > problem, we can store tha in chemical bounds, but how the hell do you > store > nitrogen?! It doesn't bound well with anything,and cryo tanks would bleed > off > long before we were done. Isaac hasn't got this one either. Lack of real world experience. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 18:07 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["889" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "20:07:03" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "28" "starship-design: FW: SSRT: X-33 LOX tank passes hydrostatic proof test" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA00881 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 18:07:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA00865 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 18:07:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p12.gnt.com [204.49.68.217]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA13437 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 20:07:33 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 20:07:30 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD05A7.3E756440.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 888 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: FW: SSRT: X-33 LOX tank passes hydrostatic proof test Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 20:07:03 -0600 -----Original Message----- From: Chris W. Johnson [SMTP:chrisj@mail.utexas.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 5:55 PM To: Single Stage Rocket Technology News Subject: SSRT: X-33 LOX tank passes hydrostatic proof test A short news item in the current (December 8, 1997) issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology states that the dual-lobed liquid oxygen tank for X-33 has passed its hydrostatic proof test. For the full story, and a picture of this rather odd looking tank, see the "Passing Grade" item at: http://www.awgnet.com/aviation/avi_int2.htm#headline6 ----Chris Chris W. Johnson Email: chrisj@mail.utexas.edu Web Page: http://gargravarr.cc.utexas.edu/ "The car allows Americans to persist in the delusion that civic life is unnecessary. As a practical matter, this regime is putting us out of business as a civilization." --J.H. Kunstler, _Home from Nowhere_ From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 10 20:42 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2223" "Wed" "10" "December" "1997" "22:41:42" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "57" "Re: starship-design: Re: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA27268 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 20:42:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA27197 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 20:42:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA09379; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 22:41:42 -0600 Message-Id: <9712110441.AA09379@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <01BD05A1.0D3E4460.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Dec 10, 97 06:59:09 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2222 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net Cc: KellySt@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: One way (again...) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 22:41:42 -0600 (CST) L. Parker wrote: >On Wednesday, December 10, 1997 1:53 PM, Kelly St [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] >wrote: >> The deep space probes like Pioneer, Viking, and Voyager had multi decade >> service lives. Thou thie trivially simple compare to these ships. >Oh don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we can't design a small system to >operate for 20 years without failure. Only that the bigger the system gets >the less likely that we can engineer EVERY part to those tolerances and the >more likely that cumulative failures of subsystems will eventually add up >to major system failure. While this is true, it's also true that manned missions can perform maintainance utterly impossible for an unmanned mission. For instance, Galileo's high gain antenna that got stock and never unfurled could have been nudged into place in at most hours if a human were on site. >We have had quite a history of such failures already in the space program. We've also had quite a history of manned missions performing remarkable maintainance when systems catastrophically failed unexpectedly. >> Oo, excelent example. I forgot about material decays in plastics. >Isaac still hasn't thought about it... So far nothing mission critical need be made of plastic. Since there needn't be any plastic on the ship, why worry about its disadvantages? >> Excelant point. One possible siolution for a star ship would be solder >> joints on all seals. This doesn't solve anything. The problem is diffusion of gas through solid metal. Creating something without leaks isn't the issue, because it's relatively easy to do this (and you _have_ to do it). >Isaac hasn't got this one either. Lack of real world experience. Yes I did. I explained that the ship would have a thick hull and that it would be larger than a small tank. Both of these proportionately reduce the rate of gas loss (diffusion rate is reduced by hull thickness and size affects loss rate by the square/cube law). As for our lack of real world experience--what were Spacelab and Mir? -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 03:41 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["611" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "12:40:13" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "21" "Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA10198 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 03:41:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA10164 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 03:40:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-006.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xg70c-001XC8C; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 12:42:26 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 610 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 12:40:13 +0100 Isaac, You replied to David: >>I think the >>assumption was the remote detection of life-bearing planets in the >>target system, with a potential mission receiving large amounts of >>popular support. > >That wouldn't be an extremely pressing reason to go, unless that >life included intelligent life which are developing or have >developed their own interstellar travel capability. Well, if that doesn't make the public crazy enough to donate a huge amount of money, then what does? The above chance may be extremely remote, but this forum after all is not meant to mirror reality that literally. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 03:41 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1274" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "12:40:06" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "32" "Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA10923 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 03:41:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA10742 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 03:41:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-006.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xg70V-001XC6C; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 12:42:19 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1273 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 12:40:06 +0100 To Zenon, >> I'd also not call it suicide, but I could imagine that the last years of >> ones life would not be as comfortable as they would be on Earth. Certainly >> not for those that survive the mayority of the crew. > >Certainly. But who says interstellar exploration >must be a nice and cosy affair like munching potato chips >on the couch before a TV-set? ;-) What? No potato chips... Well you can count me out ;) >> Anyhow, this discussion is probably very close to the Earthly discussion >> about euthanasia. Clearly there isn't a general concensus about that topic, >> so it's no wonder that the discussion about one-way missions becomes a bit >> heated every now and then. > >Hmm, possibly, though I think your analogy is wrong - >I do not see any correspondence between the two >(except, possibly, that they both lead to heated discussions...). >For that matter I am principally and unconditionally >against euthanasia, while I would gladly go for a one-way >mission to Alpha Centauri... Euthanasia is ending your life prematurely when all that is left is an unworthy way of living (ie. with pain, or without a mind). Going on a one-way mission means that you likely have to die (or even want to die) before your life becomes unworthy of living. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 03:42 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["925" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "12:40:08" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "20" "Re: starship-design: Request and Questions" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA11325 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 03:42:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA11292 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 03:42:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-006.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xg70X-001XBhC; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 12:42:21 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 924 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Request and Questions Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 12:40:08 +0100 Hi Gertie, >If a starship is constructed in space, then there should be a major decrease >in the amount of fuel it requires. I am assuming that these ships would be >taking off the ground. Depending on the mass, and length, the ship may break >in two if the ship's rear boosters lifted it up. Some kind of front, middle >and rear booster will be required to have it lift off the ground. However, >this is a big waste. Why would you want to build the ship horizontally? What's wrong with the good old vertical design? Rather than high and tall, you probably suggest it to long and tall. You might as well make it just shorter and fatter (like a tuna-can), although that probably means a bigger area to be shielded. Anyhow, since we'll be needing a BIG propulsion system, it probably wouldn't be such a bad idea to split some of that power over multiple outlets. Most big rockets do have multiple engines anyhow. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 03:43 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["422" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "12:40:10" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "13" "starship-design: Mean Time Between Failure" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA11441 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 03:43:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA11435 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 03:43:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-006.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xg70Z-001XC0C; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 12:42:23 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 421 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Mean Time Between Failure Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 12:40:10 +0100 Kelly wrote: >The mean unrepaired service life of a systems is less then the mtbf of >any of its parts. The higher percentage of parts with MTBF less then >the desired service life, the higher liklyhood failure before then. So after the shortest MTBF, other MTBFs will accumulate. The result will be that the chance for a failure to happen increases much faster than for a single part that has a short MTBF. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 03:43 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1073" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "12:40:11" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "23" "starship-design: Re: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA11541 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 03:43:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA11533 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 03:43:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-006.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xg70a-001XBNC; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 12:42:24 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1072 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: What is safest? Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 12:40:11 +0100 Kelly, >> There is however a big advantage of staying in the target system, rather >> than "floating" through space another 10 year. In the target system you >> have all the resources you want (including energy), but in space you've >> nothing. Also in the target system you won't need your most critical >> (and likely most deteriorating) part of the ship: The engines. >> Kelly continously tells us, that to stay at the target system we need to be >> selfsufficient. But don't we need to be selfsufficient if we stay from home >> 20 years (which is the minimum time for a two-way mission)? > >No, thats the whole point. If we can keep the total mission length less than >the time the that ships systems will start needing major repair, and within >the amounts of stored food we can carry. We dramatically cut down on the >servicing requirements, and hence needed crew size, repair suplies, and ship >size. Before making the discussion unnecessary long: What kind of repairs do you consider to be mayor and to be necessary in 60 years but not within 30? Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 06:42 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1233" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "08:41:43" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "33" "Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA18841 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 06:42:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id GAA18793 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 06:41:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA21524; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 08:41:43 -0600 Message-Id: <9712111441.AA21524@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: from "Timothy van der Linden" at Dec 11, 97 12:40:13 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1232 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 08:41:43 -0600 (CST) Timothy van der Linden wrote: >Isaac, >You replied to David: >>>I think the >>>assumption was the remote detection of life-bearing planets in the >>>target system, with a potential mission receiving large amounts of >>>popular support. >>That wouldn't be an extremely pressing reason to go, unless that >>life included intelligent life which are developing or have >>developed their own interstellar travel capability. >Well, if that doesn't make the public crazy enough to donate a huge amount >of money, then what does? I hope it would be enough to "find" life on another planet, but... ...apparently it's not enough of a reason to go even to Mars. OTOH, if we saw intelligent life with interstellar capability, it would be imperative we develop similar capability. Even if the aliens were "friendly", we'd be at quite a disadvantage if we lagged behind in interstellar capability. We must not allow a mineshaft gap! >The above chance may be extremely remote, but this forum after all is not >meant to mirror reality that literally. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 06:53 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1180" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "08:54:04" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "27" "starship-design: Studying planets vs. stars" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA21791 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 06:53:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id GAA21781 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 06:53:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA21968; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 08:54:04 -0600 Message-Id: <9712111454.AA21968@bit.csc.lsu.edu> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1179 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu (Starship list) Subject: starship-design: Studying planets vs. stars Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 08:54:04 -0600 (CST) One thing about studying other stars rather than studying planets in other systems: In our own Solar System, we have a wide variety of planets and planetoids to study, but we only have the one Sol. That gives us may points of reference with which to extrapolate/interpolate what other planets may be like, but only a single point of reference with which to attempt to extrapolate what other stars may be like. >From a scientific point of view, studying planets in other stars systems will be an interesting extension to existing scientific study, but studying other stars will be the birth of a new branch of study--and one which will greatly enrich our understanding of our universe. Alpha Centauri is particularly exciting to study because it is so different from Sol. A binary system is radically different and offers two stars to study. That will provide a wider gamut of examples to interpolate from, compared to the single example of Sol from which no interpolation is possible. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 06:57 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1175" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "09:52:35" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "24" "RE: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA22330 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 06:57:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA22310 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 06:56:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 09:52:36 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 1174 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: RE: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 09:52:35 -0500 > ---------- > From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu[SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] > Subject: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) > > OTOH, if we saw intelligent life with interstellar capability, it > would be imperative we develop similar capability. Even if the > aliens were "friendly", we'd be at quite a disadvantage if we lagged > behind in interstellar capability. We must not allow a mineshaft gap! > Well, while I agree this scenario would work, the problem for our purposes is that if this were a true event, and we could find that an intelligent species at interstellar distances had the capability for interstellar travel, we'd probably also be able to tell something about their means of transportation, which would give us hints as to which road to go down, technologically speaking. Since this isn't happening, we really can't discuss the relative merits of alien technology on this list. ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 06:58 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["879" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "09:54:26" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "20" "RE: starship-design: Studying planets vs. stars" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA22625 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 06:58:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA22618 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 06:58:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 09:54:27 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 878 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Studying planets vs. stars Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 09:54:26 -0500 > ---------- > From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu[SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] > Subject: starship-design: Studying planets vs. stars > > From a scientific point of view, studying planets in other stars > systems will be an interesting extension to existing scientific > study, but studying other stars will be the birth of a new branch > of study--and one which will greatly enrich our understanding of > our universe. > But it is currently possible to do some kinds of studies of other stars from home, whereas (at least today) it is impossible to study the planets of other solar systems without going there. ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 10:27 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2066" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "19:25:59" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "49" "Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA25125 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:27:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA25077 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:26:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id TAA04471; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 19:25:59 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199712111825.TAA04471@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2065 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 19:25:59 +0100 (MET) > From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) > To Zenon, > > >> I'd also not call it suicide, but I could imagine that the last years of > >> ones life would not be as comfortable as they would be on Earth. Certainly > >> not for those that survive the mayority of the crew. > > > >Certainly. But who says interstellar exploration > >must be a nice and cosy affair like munching potato chips > >on the couch before a TV-set? ;-) > > What? No potato chips... Well you can count me out ;) > Ehem, now you mentioned it, I too have got some second thoughts on my readines to go... ;-)) > >> Anyhow, this discussion is probably very close to the Earthly discussion > >> about euthanasia. Clearly there isn't a general concensus about that topic, > >> so it's no wonder that the discussion about one-way missions becomes a bit > >> heated every now and then. > > > >Hmm, possibly, though I think your analogy is wrong - > >I do not see any correspondence between the two > >(except, possibly, that they both lead to heated discussions...). > >For that matter I am principally and unconditionally > >against euthanasia, while I would gladly go for a one-way > >mission to Alpha Centauri... > > Euthanasia is ending your life prematurely when all that is left is an > unworthy way of living (ie. with pain, or without a mind). > Going on a one-way mission means that you likely have to die > (or even want to die) before your life becomes unworthy of living. > I rather see that differently, but it would be too much off topic to discuss it here, I am afraid. Only two remarks: - I am not against suicide as such (i.e., I can be against it as a way of solving the problem [or from, say, religious reasons], but I grant the right of a person to choose such a solution), but I am against suicide assisted by others, for whatever reasons. - If going on a one-way mission assumes "wanting to die", thet it is a suicide mission, not a one-way mission. Did the settlers of other continets went there because they wanted to die? -- Zenon From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 18:42 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1939" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "20:00:51" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "44" "RE: starship-design: Mean Time Between Failure" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA23162 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 18:42:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA23152 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 18:42:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p34.gnt.com [204.49.68.239]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA25346; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:42:01 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:41:58 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD0675.3998D6E0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1938 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Timothy van der Linden'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Mean Time Between Failure Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:00:51 -0600 On Thursday, December 11, 1997 5:40 AM, Timothy van der Linden [SMTP:TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl] wrote: > Kelly wrote: > > >The mean unrepaired service life of a systems is less then the mtbf of > >any of its parts. The higher percentage of parts with MTBF less then > >the desired service life, the higher liklyhood failure before then. > > So after the shortest MTBF, other MTBFs will accumulate. The result will > be > that the chance for a failure to happen increases much faster than for a > single part that has a short MTBF. To use an extremely simplified example: Part A has a MTBF of 5,000 hours, part B has a MTBF of 2,500 hours then the aggregate MTBF is approximately 1,666 hours. This ignores several external variables which could either increase or decrease the total MTBF. Depending upon how closely coupled or interdependent the two parts are, it could be worse. To illustrate, if you assume a second system that is also dependent upon part B for functioning then the total MTBF of all three systems is only 799 hours! So you see, the system as a whole is much more fragile than any single one of its parts, which is what makes it so terribly difficult to build something like Voyager or Mariner and expect them to not only survive for long, but do so in a hostile environment. Using the argument that we don't build them to last longer because we don't have to won't wash. Even the military and NASA, both of whom go to extreme lengths and pay outrageous sums for reliable parts are still plagued with what they describe as "low operability" or "mission capable rate". Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- PLEASE NOTE: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That When the Consumer Is Not Directly Observing This Product, It May Cease to Exist or Will Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 18:42 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1103" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "20:37:48" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "26" "starship-design: MTBF" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA23191 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 18:42:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA23166 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 18:42:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p34.gnt.com [204.49.68.239]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA25372 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:42:13 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:42:11 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD0675.41A64D40.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1102 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: MTBF Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:37:48 -0600 Timothy, I forgot to mention something important. The definition of what MTBF is varies depending upon who you ask, for instance some manufacturers exclude components older than the designed lifetime from testing. In other words, if they test 1,000 components for five years all of which have a designed lifetime of four years, any components that become older than four years during the course of the test are removed from testing and replaced with new components! In addition, in a sample real life test of components rated for 1,000,000 hours MTBF and a designed lifetime of five years, 11 percent failed in one year. Hardly what you would expect from components with a rated 1,000,000 hours MTBF! MTBF is a guideline, not a guarantee. As a matter of fact it says so in the fine print at the bottom of the page... Lee (o o) ------------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo----- ---- Up the airy mountain, Down the rushy glen, We daren't go a-hunting For fear of little men; William Allingham, Ireland, 1850 From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 20:15 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["546" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "23:11:05" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "15" "Re: Re: RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA26127 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:15:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.165]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA26107 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:15:16 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <79b34f0e.3490b972@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 545 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:11:05 EST In a message dated 12/10/97 7:51:00 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>Right. In the original concept for this design group, we were assuming >>some extremely pressing reason-to-go had come up. > >I can't imagine any extremely pressing reason to go which would also >give enough time to develop interstellar travel capability. Apollo was "extreamly pressing" but had most of a decade to develop the equip. Given an extensive space based society with significant automated constructyion systems. That could do it. But its pressing it. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 20:15 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["12073" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "23:11:20" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "292" "Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA26207 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:15:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.165]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA26197 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:15:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 12072 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:11:20 EST In a message dated 12/11/97 6:55:35 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: Kelly St >> >> In a message dated 12/8/97 3:24:52 PM, you wrote: >> >> >From: Kelly St >> >> >> >> Then don't go by train. Most of our systems could get their once and >> >> back easier and cheaper then going their and seting up infastructure. >> >> >> >That is debatable. >> > >> >My opinion is that it would be cheaper to go one-way to establish >> >infrastructure (as I have written before the biggest problem as for now >> >is the propulsion - certainly going one-way halves this problem). >> >> I disagree strongly. A construction expidition or a long duration mission >> would need to be far better equiped, and far larger. Hence, both would be >> more expensive. >> >Due to the distances, the time duration of the two types of mission, >when taking into account Isaac's calculations >that most probably due to technologially affordable mass ratios, >the cruise speed for the two-way mission would have to be halved: This statment makes no sence to me, and none of the designs I've come up with have shown this effect. We've all been talking about refuling the ship at the target system. So the mass ratio for a one way or two way is the same. (Also both my designs (explorer and Fuel/Sail) hav .33c and .42c cruse speeds, and most every one else was pushing for faster ships.) If you are for some reason assuming a 2 way trip without refueling, I'm not sure mearly halving the cruse speed would allow you to stay withing the same total fuel mass ratio. >0ne-way: > flight there (10 yrs); > + sustained stay for the rest of the crew (natural) life > (with life expectancy in space of 70 yrs, age at start 30yrs, > and flight time 10 yrs, this phase will last 30yrs at most); > = 40 yrs; >Two-way: > flight there (20 yrs); > + sustained stay for the exploration phase (5 yrs); > + flight back (20 yrs); > = 45 yrs. >may actually be in favor of the one-way mission. >Not speaking about the fact that those who return from >the two-way mission will land on Earth five years >after their life expectancy... Only because your assuming a fairly short life expectance. With the high risk environment of a mission like that, that might be justifiable, but for planing purposes you'ld have to assume longer. >Hence, the two-way mission will need approximately the same >amount (and duration needs) of the equipment. >But two-way will be much more demanding from the fuel/engine >point of view (as Isaac correctly remarked, not simply two times >more, but possibly orders of magnitude more). This makes no sence. If your assuming the same total fuel ration on the ship for a one or two way mission. You need the same total thrust from the engines (but of course on the return leg you can stand dropout with less mission impact). So how could the demands on the engines be orders of magnitude more, or realisticly even twice as much? At most the engines firing time is twice as much, but thats separated by years to do check out and servicing. >Hence, which would cost more - still REMAINS DEBATABLE. > >Note also that in order to not became a suicide mission, >the two-way mission plan must ALSO be capable to safely change it >into one-way at target when the return flight becomes impossible >for some quite probable reasons (engine failure, problems >with fuel mining at target, etc.). That would be desirable, but increasing the service life by more then 50% would probably require MAJOR scale up in the ship systems and crew, which would probably be untenable. Contingencies for those problems that allow a return would need to be factored in, or a possible rescue mission (i.e. diverting the next ship that could have been planed to be launched to another star). >> >Especially in long run: two-way leaves practically nothing >> >over there to go back for; establishing an outpost - well, >> >establishes a target to return to (at least to help with new >> >supplies them struggling over there...). >> > >> >Remember Apollo - a plant-the-flag mission has little consequences >> >and does not lead to sustained exploration. >> >The Russian "Mir", being a true outpost in near-space >> >is since many years the only long-term space project - >> >one of its main effects being prevention of Russian space program >> >from a total collapse... >> >The two-way mission "just to show it is possible" will also make >> >a much less impact and consequence than the outpost-building. >> >> No, we would not go somewhere just to go to an outpost. In itself, >> an outpost isn't a goal or a reason for going somewhere. >> At best its a tool to allow you to do something there. >> At worst its a stunt. (Been there, done that, took >> our bows, and went home.) >> >Ahh, but the above applies even stronger to the two-way mission >(especially the "and went home" part ;-)). I don't follow that statement. It sounds like your saying if we have no reason to go somewhere (or go back to) then stay there perminently? >Hence, from this point of view one-way and two-way seem equivalent... > > >> If your assuming a maned outpost, it would be a strong incentive to cancel >> the first mission. I.E. to prevent being forced to eather: >> send a retriaval expidition to bring them back, or to take the heat >> for leaving them to die for some Apollo like stunt. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >You again with that "leaving them to die" rhetoric... >And "leaving them to die" back on Earth is so much better? Yes, obviously, for reasons I've stated several times, including above. >Or "leaving them to die" during the long and quite boring >return flight (of old age/sickness or in a catastrophic accident, >much more probable during the return flight due to engine wear)? The return flight would certainly be no more boring then being parked in the target system. Eaither way you still stuck in the ship with no where to go. But at least your going back somewhere at the end. >> >And, Kelly, you seem to contradict yourself at the costs issue - >> >in another post you have written: >> > >> >> From: Kelly St >> >> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 10:59:57 EST >> >> [...] >> >> Thats effectivly a suicide mission. I know a few folks in this group >> >> disagree, or don't care, but it still would meen no government on earth >> >> could get permision for such a mission. >> >> I.E. your throwing away a crew for no critical reason. >> >> Specifically your doing it to save money, >> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> which is really not going to sell. >> >> >> >I.e., you assume (and use it as an argument!) >> >that one-way will save money... Voila! >> >> I thought you had used that as an argument!? Why else would you not >> equip an expidition with a return capability? I thought your whole >> suggestion for this started as a suggestion to save money? >> >No. >You suggested that one-way will be much more costly (due to much >larger needs for long duration supplies, repair factories, etc.). >I had only countered your opinion on that, arguing that >the costs might actually be smaller for one-way. >My main arguments in favor for one-way were (and are): >- technological feasibility; >- safety. >Cost is for me a secondary factor here, but, in my opinion, >ALSO in favor of one-way. Oh. >> >> >> Seariously a big question we've never gotten very far with is why >> >> >> anyone would send such a mission? >> >> > >> >> >See, above. I still haven't found a sound reason to send any mission. >> >> >Lee >> >> >> >> Me neiather. >> >> Kelly >> >> >> >Yes, in short term, there isn't any. >> >But remember Sagan: >> >"All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct." >> >> Tese missions would in no way make us a more 'spacefaring civilization'. >> They would however require us to already be a very space faring >> civilization to launch them. >> >Yes, before undertaking an insterstellar mission we must be >already a very spacefaring civilization - in fact I have repeated >this several times in our discussions in the past (and in the next >paragraph of my previous letter too, see below). >However, going interstellar will be the logical and ncessary >NEXT step to become really spacefaring, not merely in-system-faring... >We all agree that interstellar travel is orders of magnitude >harder than in-system, hence being able to launch a starship >will certainly signify that we are much more spacefaring >than before. But, within the technical limits of the designs were coming up with. There are no practical benifits, and some significal costs) to launching such a mission. So launching it can't be considered important for the survival of the civilization, in the sence of the quoted comment. I.E. It does not offer the potential to increse resorces andmaerial, or ranges, accessable to human civilization. >> >Of course, we must first settle our system to a significant >> >degree (at least to be able to built a HUGE starship >> >without hauling all that mass from Earth's gravity well). >> > >> >Thus, barring some great breakthrough like FTL, >> >I do not see any real possibility (if not technological, >> >then psycho-/econo-/political) to send a manned interstellar >> >mission within 50 years or so. >> >On the abvoe we agree, I presume? ;-0 Probably true. Certainly the costs would make this an unsustainable enterprize with the systems we've come up with. >> >Returning to Sagan, his prediction already seems to turn >> >the dangerous way - as Kyle has remarked: >> > >> >> From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" >> >> >> >> The visionaries of our world are nearly gone. What I mean by this is >> >> the ones that saw true worth in our exploration and expansion, >> >> those such as Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, and the like are all dying. >> >> The sad thing is, there seem to be few if any new visionaries >> >> like them. I, being a teenager, spend considerable >> >> time with other teenagers, and can tell you that the vision is gone. >> >> Arthur C. Clarke and Rober Bussard won't be around forever. >> >> I just wonder where the human in humanity has gone. >> >> >> >Without opening a real big frontier in space, the humanity will >> >decline even faster and earlier than we may expect. >> >The symptoms are already quite visible. >> >> I'm not sure what your talking about as symptoms, >> >One example - a prominent member of the interstellar travel >discussion list so strongly opposed to even considering >one-way missions as a discussion option! ;-( Because they have significant increased costs political, social, and economic, and have no corresponding advantage. (and their is the moral issue involved.) >> but their are plenty of >> other visionaries. Many working to build more realistic and grand visions. >> But they aren't as interesting to the public at the moment. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >You just pointed out another symptom... Agreed, but that comes and goes in cycles. The public now isn't as interetsed in mega projects. But that that changes. >> Personally I think interest in space will perk up when space does do things. >> At the moments its effects have been quite underwelming given the levels of >> effort. A more productive space program, should gain more interest and >> approval. >> >Possibly, let us hope so. >But without a vision and exploration spirit in plenty, >there will be NO "more productive space program", >or even any space program. > >Agreed? Not really. Most of the growth in space systems and programs, especially up to the scale needed for a project like this, would have to come from commercial interests, not from exploration, political, or scientific interests. Such interests are making serious moves toward space, but have to dismantal governmently roadblocks and sanctions. I'm not sure if you'ld consider that "...a vision and exploration spirit in plenty.."? >-- Zenon Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 20:16 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1273" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "23:11:32" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "35" "Re: RE: starship-design: Re: debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA26372 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:16:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.170]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA26364 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:16:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1272 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: david@actionworld.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Re: debate Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:11:32 EST In a message dated 12/10/97 7:50:49 PM, david@actionworld.com wrote: >> ---------- >> From: Kelly St[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] >> Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: debate >> >> The oil companies do expect practical fusion to really crater their >> market in >> 50 years or so, but since they've identofied at least 2 centuries of >> oil >> (assuming no market losses to other sources, and a continuation of >> world >> consuption growth rates), a future oil shock is not likely to help >> push the >> tech. >> >Well, this isn't entirely true. Two centuries worth of oil is indeed >there, but much of it is considerably more expensive to extract than >current oil. Prices will still rise considerably, even though the oil >is there. >------------------------------------------------------ >David Levine It was expected to be less economical at the moment, but prices have (on average) declined for over a century, and were expected to do so for another century. Also oil is VERY plentiful in near earth comet cores, so if we wished to we could extend our oil reserves for a couple thousand years that way at probably reasonable rates. However the oil companies did expect the market to be taken away from them by other power sources within a few decades. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 20:18 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2757" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "23:12:03" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "62" "Re: starship-design: StarShip Design: Request and Questions" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA26888 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:18:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.172]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA26857 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:18:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4ffd4c0e.3490b996@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2756 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Gertchen1@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: StarShip Design: Request and Questions Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:12:03 EST In a message dated 12/11/97 8:30:43 AM, Gertchen1@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 97-12-10 10:33:57 EST, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu writes: > ><< >> Like what? The mission critical systems are: > > >> 1. The deceleration rocket systems. These have to last 2 decades > >> and there's little margin for spares. However, after that > >> they are no longer mission critical. > > >Current maximum operational lifetime: 50 hours continuous use, shelf life: > >none. > > Huh? We don't have _any_ current deceleration rocket system suitable > for a .2c mission. The rocket systems we do have aren't even remotely > like what would be used for such a mission. > >> >If a starship is constructed in space, then there should be a major decrease >in the amount of fuel it requires. I am assuming that these ships would be >taking off the ground. Depending on the mass, and length, the ship may break >in two if the ship's rear boosters lifted it up. Some kind of front, middle >and rear booster will be required to have it lift off the ground. However, >this is a big waste. Why have these things, if they're that big, waste >precious fuel on the ground when they can just stay in space? Transports, or >planes can bring stuff back and forth into space, and dock with the vessel. I >do not see why so much fuel must be wasted to boost one rocket if the ship >could stay in space and not run out of oxygen. Perhaps, with a crew of fifty, >and the ship being about a mile in length, an entire deck rich with oxygen >giving plants and a routine filling of oxygen tanks would be sufficient. Since >I am writing a book, I am on the quest for starship designs, mostly warships. >Any designs would be appreciated ^_^ > >Thanks! >Gertie Boosting into space isn't really a problem. You have to remember, getting into orbit only means you need to accellerate to about 30,000 kilometers per hour. To boost between stars were taking about speeds of 100,000 to 130,000 kilometers per SECOND! So the engines could handel it easily. On the other hand the backwash from those engines (generally fusion motors) would make WW-III look like a childs 4th of july sparkler! Assuming you could get around that, the ships just to big, and its not designed to work parked on a planet. So we have generall assumed it would work like an aircraft carrier. It would stay away from the planets, and the shuttles comutte to and from the planets and moons of interest. Plants and alge are usable, but a more chemical/industrial process would be more compact and relyable. 'Fraid were not looking into interstellar warships. But the Stuff in the LIT Starship design sites might interest you. http://sunsite.unc.edu/lunar/sdhp.html or http://www.urly-bird.com/LIT/ Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 20:18 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1778" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "23:11:11" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "49" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA27097 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:18:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.174]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA27054 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:18:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <833da78e.3490b962@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1777 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:11:11 EST In a message dated 12/11/97 12:02:40 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >Kelly St wrote: > >>I deliberately refure to them as "suicide" missions for two reason. First to >>emphasis that that is how they will be perceved as by the public. > >Only if the public is like you (and remains like you). The public >may have a different attitude. I spent 15 years in NASA and few more in other such things. This is an issue with a lot of study by such folks. You do NOT, EVER, suggest astronuats or crew are expendable, or ever put in a situation where every effort to support their safe return wasn't taken. The political firestorm from violating those rules is intense, and one sided. >>Secound because I beleve the odds of outliving the dieing ships >>systems decrease exponetially as you significantly extend the >>mission length. > >In order to perform a 2-way mission, you have to double how long >it takes to reach the target system, and this is also how much time >it takes to get back. Proven false on several occasions by several persons here. >In the case of a .2c 1-way mission, the one way mission lasts perhaps >60 years (about the time the crew die of old age). In the case of >a .1c 2-way mission (this uses equivalent technology), the mission >lasts perhaps 60 years (about the time the crew die of old age). >They can't live the 80 years it takes to get there and back. In >the case of a .2c 2-way mission (this uses more advanced technology), >the mission lasts perhaps 50 years (10 years in system). Far slowrer than an mission suggested by anyone with the possible exception of you. >>The later can be compensated for by an exponential >>increase in ship suplies and crew resources, but the later is unchangable. >-- > _____ Isaac Kuo Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 20:18 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1636" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "23:11:36" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "47" "Re: Re: starship-design: Re: debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA27143 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:18:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.174]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA27082 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:18:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <55ca968e.3490b97a@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1635 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: debate Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:11:36 EST In a message dated 12/11/97 6:59:04 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >Kelly St wrote: >>In a message dated 12/9/97 11:37:12 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: > >>>Look. I've never written anything here with any contradictions, >>>obvious or otherwise. You just have an incredible capacity to >>>misread, misinterpret, and/or unjustifiably assume things. The >>>most aggravating thing about trying to discuss anything with you >>>is your inability to comprehend precisely what's written and >>>the way you inject straw-men which aren't even hinted at. > >>I.E. your not being unclear, I'm just to stupid to understand what your >>talking about? Try again. > >Maybe you are too stupid. After all, you yourself just wrote: > > >If this statement isn't indicative of stupidity, what is? How oh snide one? If the fuel ratio for a speed remains the same. (Say the 400 to one to get to the target speed of the Fuel/Sail). And you want to make two trips, you need 400 x 400 x the ships dry weigh. I.e. 400^2 >>Or, you could try describing your system, in >>detail, and list why you think it would save significant power, and I'll >>comment on it. > >That's what I did with my very first post on it. Not that I read, nor could you clear up any of my confusion in several subsuquent cycles. Nor have you show any interest in doing so. You are however geting a fondness of using personal insults to answer technical questions. >-- > _____ Isaac Kuo Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 20:20 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2184" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "23:11:40" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "61" "Re: RE: starship-design: Re: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA27755 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:20:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.175]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA27708 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:20:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2183 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Re: One way (again...) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:11:40 EST In a message dated 12/11/97 1:37:55 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >On Wednesday, December 10, 1997 1:53 PM, Kelly St [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] >wrote: > >> The deep space probes like Pioneer, Viking, and Voyager had multi decade >> service lives. Thou thie trivially simple compare to these ships. > >Oh don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we can't design a small system to >operate for 20 years without failure. Only that the bigger the system gets >the less likely that we can engineer EVERY part to those tolerances and the >more likely that cumulative failures of subsystems will eventually add up >to major system failure. We have had quite a history of such failures >already in the space program. Definatly agree. This stuff will need serious fault tolerance and redundancy, and some good repair systems to make 40-50 years. Best we can hope for is some recom probes left behind work for a few more decades after the ship pulls out. >> Oo, excelent example. I forgot about material decays in plastics. > >Isaac still hasn't thought about it... Hard to hear others when your sure you know it all. ;) >> Excelant point. One possible siolution for a star ship would be solder >> joints >> on all seals. If you want to rotate something, you heat the joints until >> they >> melt, rotate them, then cool and resolder the joint. >> >> Still would leak out all the air every few years thou. Ox and CO2 isn't >a >> big >> problem, we can store tha in chemical bounds, but how the hell do you >> store >> nitrogen?! It doesn't bound well with anything,and cryo tanks would >bleed >> off >> long before we were done. > >Isaac hasn't got this one either. Lack of real world experience. The real world is so much messyier than what teachers tell you. I did think his "current phyisics knows it all.." were hysterical. "Yes we have reached the limits of sail technology so no ship can ever reach the new world in less then..." ;) It is surprizing how few folks realize everything wears out. I mean we spend our lives watching our cars, houses, and cloths wear out around us. Yet expect other things to go for centuries without change. Weird. >Lee Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 20:23 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1565" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "23:11:52" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "46" "Re: Re: starship-design: What is savest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA28273 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:23:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.176]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA28230 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:22:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4c57e8f.3490b98b@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1564 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: What is savest? Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:11:52 EST In a message dated 12/11/97 8:11:58 AM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >To Kelly, > >>>In short, I'm not so much wondering what is cheaper, but more about what is >>>saver. Or to put is less subjective: What has a bigger chance of succeeding? >> >>Actually because staying in place requires you stay longer, and thus need more >>suplies, repairs, etc. I do think the 2-way would be cheaper, smaller, and >>more relyable. > >I hope you assume that for a 2-way mission the fuel/energy for the return >trip comes from the target system.--- Oh Yeah! I do not go quietly into a geometric weight growth. ;) >-- If not, then you probably can carry more >than enough supplies instead of the fuel for the return trip. >So assuming we get the fuel in the target system, there has to be some not >so small unit (probably multiple units) that mines asteroids or planets for >fuel. >For a one-way mission that not so small unit can be replaced by many small >specialized units that can be used for all (un)thinkable repairs. Possibly. If you alot a few thousand tons of specialized gear for mining and refining, you could asume a similar amount for extra spares and suplies. >>In our case the engines are actually not a big factor. You need the full set >>of engines to decel into the system, or you'ld overshoot. On a boost back, if >>some of the engines fail, you drop them and burn the others longer until you >>use up the rest of the fuel. > >This assumes we have multiple engines. But OK, that about the engines was >just a whim of mine. > >Timothy Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 20:24 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["682" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "23:11:08" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "16" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA28653 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:24:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.170]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA28634 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:24:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <566bd90d.3490b965@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 681 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:11:08 EST In a message dated 12/11/97 8:59:42 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>Materials inspace are FAR more avalible, and orders of magnitude higher in >>purity. Stainless steel for example can be mined in almost finished alloy >>form, oil and petrochemicals can be scooped up by the montain load etc. > >In order to build a habitat, you have a lot more diverse resources >than just something to build a big tin can. A place to live can >be built out of rock, or cement. The primary other things you need >to live are oxygen and hydrogen. On some planets this is a problem, >but on others it isn't. Water ice and other gas mixtures are also ver common in asteroids and comet cores. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 20:26 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["8530" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "23:11:28" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "204" "Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Re: debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA29833 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:26:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.167]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA29775 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:26:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1274c88d.3490b972@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 8529 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Re: debate Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:11:28 EST In a message dated 12/11/97 12:39:11 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >Kelly St wrote: >>In a message dated 12/9/97 11:55:52 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: > >>>>>>Beyond that plannig on such systems in the next 50 years is highly >>>>>>conservative even by the standrads of commercial investors. > >>>>>Commercial investors take amazing risks all the time. They need to >>>>>do so in order to make their overall profits. That is the nature >>>>>of investment. Given the current profitability of the stock market >>>>>compared to bonds, I would have thought that obvious. > >>>>Commercial investors never take amazing risks. Their entire focus >>>>is to avoid amazing risks. > >>>Untrue. They regularly invest large sums of money on speculations >>>which may fail, and when it's other people's money it can make big >>>news when the bet fails. > >>All investments are risks. "amazing risks" suggests an unusually high risk > >They are unusually high, in that the average middle income investor >can not afford to take them. Do you have any idea how risky most high yeild stock the "average middle income investor" is flocking to know are? The risks of total loss are rated at approching that. ===> >Bill Gates is extremely paranoid and cutthroat in his business >practices because he's seen first hand how volatile the computer >industry is and how no one is assured to stay on top. He's well >aware that a single slip up could be all it takes to permanently >cripple a computer company, like IBM or Apple. As a nit, IBM or Apple spent years to decades shooting themselves in the foot with arrogent attitudes before it caught up with them. ==> >>>I have great confidence that for interstellar travel something on >>>the level of a theoretical anti-matter rocket or less will remain >>>the best we can hope for in the next millenia. The physics of >>>relativity and conservation of energy strongly suggest this. > >>The physics of relativity and conservation of energy have only been developted >>in the last century. > >Conservation of energy has been around for longer than that, and the >physics of relativity did not invalidate most of the predictions >made by classical mechanics. Actually E=mC^2 did violate classical conservation of energy, since no one ever thought matter and energy were convertable. No doubt similar 'corrections' in our assumptions are ahead of us. >What relativity did was it explained a lot of phenomena which didn't >quite fit classical mechanics. > >The critical difference between classical mechanics and general >relativity is that there were a lot of natural phenomena which >didn't fit classical mechanics, and there are NO phenomena (natural >or manmade) which don't fit general relativity. We might observe >some phenomena which don't, but we've pushed the bounds to near >light velocities and haven't found anything inconsistent with it yet. Actually physisc is full of unexplain phenominon and unexplored energies and and conditions. Masy we don't even have the equipment to look at yet. >>They are not the end of physics research, nore are they likely to >>be the ultimate form of power or rocket physics. > >I disagree. I think general relativity and conservation of energy >will stand forever as limiting factors to technology. The degree >to which we understand the motion of heavenly bodies is fundamentally >different from any period in history, because with general relativity >we acquired for the first time the ability to explain _all_ observed >motion. > >The principle of conservation of energy is a principle which has >less direct predictive power, but it's one which has stood the >test of time despite changes in our understanding of physics. > >>Research into >>newer physics, capable of far greater power, performance, etc (zero point >>energy, inertia/mass damping, etc) has progressed to the degree that NASA is >>funding some conferences and studies on them. > >We will always look for ways around what we know, and research into >zero point energy and cold fusion is very inexpensive to conduct. > >That doesn't mean there's any credibility to any of it. True, but their was no credibility to relativity until it was tested. >>So I would estimate that the odds that current physics (like >>the physics of relativity and conservation of energy, or mass >>conversion rockets) will not be greatly surpassed in the next >>century, are about nil (assuming no colapse of civilization). > >If you honestly think so, then why do you care at all about this >starship design list's concept? According to your thinking, there >is no chance that anything we come up with will be anything even >remotely like what would be worth sending to the stars. True, in the same way the lunar systems designed by the british interplanetary society most of a century ago, or those designed by VonBraun in the '50's, bore little relation to to the apollo systems. But it did show you could go to the moon with those technologies. >The predictive power of general relativity is simply too much >better than what came before, and too heavily tested and confirmed >by hostile scientists, to put it on the same level as what came >before. :) Chavanist. All ages think they found the ultimate truths, all are superceeded by their succesors. ==>> >>>Huh? Advantage over what? A dispersed phased array system can't >>>be adapted to longer range without significant modification. What >>>_can_ be done is to increase it's efficiency by bunching it up >>>together as tightly as possible, ideally shoulder-to-shoulder. > >>>The only thing you gain by dispersing them over a wide area is... >>>you don't gain anything, actually. At every range, the beam >>>produced by the tightly bunched up array is superior to the >>>beam produced by the widely dispersed array. > >>You gain increased range due to the larger virtual lens from the array. > >NO YOU DO NOT!!!!!!!! > >YOU DO NOT INCREASE RANGE BY EVEN A SINGLE MILLIMETER. > >The larger virtual lens size is exactly counteracted by the reduced >efficiency. In other words, if you get a spot which is 1/10 the >area, it will also have 1/10 the beam energy. You haven't gained >anything. > >OTOH, you have _lost_ 9/10's of the theoretical optimum beam (the >optimum beam is if the elements are bunched up shoulder to shoulder). > >Kelly, try and comprehend this one fact, if nothing else. The >widely spaced array gains you NOTHING. Thats was countered by oter on this board. To put it blutly. You need that size to focus at long ranges. If you can't focus the beam, it dosn't matter how much of it you transmit. >>>>>The possible reuse of the lasers is particularly notable if it is >>>>>reused in a single mission (e.g. sequencially launching multiple >>>>>modules which provide deceleration fuel). > >>>>>However, the possible reuse of lasers for marketable power generation >>>>>is, IMO, dubious. First, there has to be a market for that amount >>>>>of power. > >>>>Presumably for large scale industrial operations in space, such as non near >>>>earth asteropid work and transport. But agreed, this is speculative. > >>>The only serious use for them I can imagine is for laser powered >>>rocket transport. Assuming nuclear reactors remain expensive and/or >>>fission materials remain restricted, laser powered rockets offer >>>great potential savings in rocket costs. > >>>For any sort of heavy industrial work where it's worth putting a >>>high power refinery on site, it's also worth putting its power >>>source on site. Beamed power really only offers a potential >>>advantage in cases where the power is only needed a small fraction >>>of the time (which is the case for rockets). > >>Since the refineries and propulsion platforms would need to relocate around >>asteroidal space, being able to buy a couple months powe without shipping a >>power plant to the site could make a lot of economic sence. > >These refineries are likely to mass a lot more than their power >source, so if it's worth moving the refinery on site, it's not >much of a marginal cost to bring its power source along as well. >(The alternative is moving the asteroid to a refinery, which is >an example of rocket power--which I already describe as a valid >potential use for beamed power, if nuclear rockets are restricted.) Actually in space this isn't a factor for a lot of types of refineries. I.E. you use power, but little physical equipment, but thats geting off topic. > _____ Isaac Kuo Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 20:26 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3451" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "23:11:58" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "68" "Re: starship-design: Re: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA00020 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:26:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.167]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA29922 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:26:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <469b9c0d.3490b990@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3450 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: What is safest? Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:11:58 EST In a message dated 12/11/97 5:44:14 AM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >Kelly, > >>> There is however a big advantage of staying in the target system, rather >>> than "floating" through space another 10 year. In the target system you >>> have all the resources you want (including energy), but in space you've >>> nothing. Also in the target system you won't need your most critical >>> (and likely most deteriorating) part of the ship: The engines. >>> Kelly continously tells us, that to stay at the target system we need to be >>> selfsufficient. But don't we need to be selfsufficient if we stay from home >>> 20 years (which is the minimum time for a two-way mission)? >> >>No, thats the whole point. If we can keep the total mission length less than >>the time the that ships systems will start needing major repair, and within >>the amounts of stored food we can carry. We dramatically cut down on the >>servicing requirements, and hence needed crew size, repair suplies, and ship >>size. > >Before making the discussion unnecessary long: What kind of repairs do you >consider to be mayor and to be necessary in 60 years but not within 30? > >Timothy More structural repair due to fatigue and corosion. Power cables and distrabution systems, reaction vessels for life support reactions (distilation of water, air processing and synthasis, etc), plumbing, ductwork, pumps, bearings for the hab centrafuge, etc. Also electronics get increasingly erratic at those ages. More significant is that as more and more things reach and exceed their service lives. More repairs will be needed, but the shelf life of the need spare parts would also be exceeded. So you need to bring more manufacturing gear to make spares that, years earlier, you could have replaced from stores. Stores that themself have broken down while in storage. But that leeds to more equip and personel to keep that manufacturing gear runing. Food also becomes an issue. For a 30-40 year round trip mission we found the weight of stored food was less than that for a close ecology systems with full food production capacity. But if the crew has to be cared for for their projected life span. (Presumably at least a century by then.) The ship must be capable of 70-80 years of support. That eiather means doubling the weight in stored food, or going recycled. Paradoxicly the engines to boost back are fairly safe. They don't need complex micro systems, and being unpowered arn't under load or much thermal stress. Due to the large scale these engines and reactors must be. Minor corosion on metal to metal contact points isn't critical. To be stable the engines would have to stick to simple stable alloys (copper vers super conductors etc.), which would also increase stability. Since the decel burn into the system has to end in the systems the thrust has to stay pretty constant. But with the boost out of the system you just want to get to the final speed. If it takes you 6 months or 2 years, isn't as crytical. So if you lose half the engines during the boost. You just boost with the others twice as long. Also if you drop the dead engines, the ship is lighter and can get to a higher speed with the remaining fuel. So a 2 way flight puts most stress on the drive systems, which generally have only been used for a few months, but least on te general suport systems for the ship which have alread been in use for deacades. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Dec 12 07:05 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1961" "Fri" "12" "December" "1997" "09:04:51" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "44" "Re: starship-design: Studying planets vs. stars" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA18382 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 07:05:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA18358 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 07:05:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA28692; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:04:51 -0600 Message-Id: <9712121504.AA28692@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: from "David Levine" at Dec 11, 97 09:54:26 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1960 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: david@actionworld.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Studying planets vs. stars Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:04:51 -0600 (CST) David Levine wrote: >> From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu[SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] >> Subject: starship-design: Studying planets vs. stars >> From a scientific point of view, studying planets in other stars >> systems will be an interesting extension to existing scientific >> study, but studying other stars will be the birth of a new branch >> of study--and one which will greatly enrich our understanding of >> our universe. >But it is currently possible to do some kinds of studies of other stars >from home, whereas (at least today) it is impossible to study the >planets of other solar systems without going there. This is true, but this fact is double edged. It's possible to get a lot of information about other stars--even ones in other galaxies--by looking at them with various telescopes. That means that we have a lot of information about them already, which indeed cannot be said about extrasolar planets. However, it also means that we have a lot of information with which to deduce the nature of far away stars--if only we had detailed information about a variety of stars. Unfortunately, we only have highly detailed information about Sol. Given the sort of highly detailed information obtainable with manned missions to nearby star systems, it will be possible to create a gamut of known star archetypes with which to interpolate and extrapolate deduced information about far away star systems. OTOH, highly detailed information about extrasolar planets is not likely to so fundamentally expand our knowledge base. Even if it turns out extrasolar planets are somehow fundamentally different from solar planets, we don't have enough information gathering ability on far away planets (especially extragalactic!) to make as much use of that information. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Dec 12 07:54 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2389" "Fri" "12" "December" "1997" "09:52:10" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "47" "Re: starship-design: Mean Time Between Failure" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA00983 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 07:54:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA00908 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 07:54:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00209; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:52:10 -0600 Message-Id: <9712121552.AA00209@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <01BD0675.3998D6E0.lparker@cacaphony.net> from "L. Parker" at Dec 11, 97 08:00:51 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2388 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net Cc: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Mean Time Between Failure Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:52:10 -0600 (CST) L. Parker wrote: >So you see, the system as a whole is much more fragile than any single one >of its parts, which is what makes it so terribly difficult to build >something like Voyager or Mariner and expect them to not only survive for >long, but do so in a hostile environment. Using the argument that we don't >build them to last longer because we don't have to won't wash. Even the >military and NASA, both of whom go to extreme lengths and pay outrageous >sums for reliable parts are still plagued with what they describe as "low >operability" or "mission capable rate". NASA and the military don't build things to last centuries, and have no incentive to do so. (The former because nothing they build will be used so long and the latter because anything built today will be obsolete soon enough.) Building things to last is an engineering problem, and it can be done. Ask an engineer to design something that will last 100 or 1000 years, and he'll go and do it. The question is--why? Why would you build something designed to last 1000 years without maintainance? Well, Hoover Dam's massive turbines are an example of this. There simply isn't any practical way to perform maintainance on them, so they and their bearings were designed to last 1000 years (this is undoubtably optimistic, and extrapolating far beyond any reasonable bounds, but at least they've done well for the larger part of a century). There really isn't a big secret to making things last--you keep them simple and big and heavy rather than miniaturized and pared down to minimum tolerances. My dad's old Sony turntable and amplifier works perfectly after 3 decades because they just plain overengineered the things back then. Advances in technology allowed miniaturizing, reducing wasted space, and paring down the thicknesses of the case walls to a minimum, so today's Sony amplifiers are more sophisticated, smaller, and lighter. But I wouldn't be on them lasting as long. For today's space missions and military applications, of course, it's anathema to bulk up components without good reason. Making them last more than a few decades isn't a good reason for a mission which lasts only a few years. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Dec 12 07:55 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["975" "Fri" "12" "December" "1997" "09:55:03" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "24" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA01169 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 07:55:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA01118 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 07:55:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00300; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:55:03 -0600 Message-Id: <9712121555.AA00300@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <566bd90d.3490b965@aol.com> from "Kelly St" at Dec 11, 97 11:11:08 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 974 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:55:03 -0600 (CST) Kelly St wrote: >In a message dated 12/11/97 8:59:42 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>>Materials inspace are FAR more avalible, and orders of magnitude higher in >>>purity. Stainless steel for example can be mined in almost finished alloy >>>form, oil and petrochemicals can be scooped up by the montain load etc. >>In order to build a habitat, you have a lot more diverse resources >>than just something to build a big tin can. A place to live can >>be built out of rock, or cement. The primary other things you need >>to live are oxygen and hydrogen. On some planets this is a problem, >>but on others it isn't. >Water ice and other gas mixtures are also ver common in asteroids and comet >cores. Yes, but the amounts available won't be as much as that available on a planet. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Dec 12 08:12 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3312" "Fri" "12" "December" "1997" "10:11:45" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "73" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA05761 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:12:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA05623 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:12:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00920; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 10:11:46 -0600 Message-Id: <9712121611.AA00920@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <833da78e.3490b962@aol.com> from "Kelly St" at Dec 11, 97 11:11:11 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3311 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 10:11:45 -0600 (CST) Kelly St wrote: >In a message dated 12/11/97 12:02:40 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>Kelly St wrote: >>>I deliberately refure to them as "suicide" missions for two reason. >>>First to emphasis that that is how they will be perceved as by the >>>public. >>Only if the public is like you (and remains like you). The public >>may have a different attitude. >I spent 15 years in NASA and few more in other such things. This is an issue >with a lot of study by such folks. You do NOT, EVER, suggest astronuats or >crew are expendable, or ever put in a situation where every effort to support >their safe return wasn't taken. The political firestorm from violating those >rules is intense, and one sided. Okay, but in the case I pose the crew are not expendable--every effort is put into insuring their safety--and every effort to support their safe return is taken (there is no way to make a return at all with the technology available). >>>Secound because I beleve the odds of outliving the dieing ships >>>systems decrease exponetially as you significantly extend the >>>mission length. >>In order to perform a 2-way mission, you have to double how long >>it takes to reach the target system, and this is also how much time >>it takes to get back. >Proven false on several occasions by several persons here. No, you always make the assumption that you refuel in system. The situation I pose is that of a first mission, which can not refuel in system. Even if they could bring with them the necessary equipment to do so, they won't have sufficient information about the target system to reasonably expect it will be possible to refuel. Not for a first mission, at least. Also, I'm talking about a mission to a star system which may not have any resources with which to refuel at all! You're using a circular argument if you start off with the assumption that we need to refuel or we'll never go. You can't argue that a 2-way mission is the only possibility by starting off with the assumption that a 2-way mission is the only possibility. >>In the case of a .2c 1-way mission, the one way mission lasts perhaps >>60 years (about the time the crew die of old age). In the case of >>a .1c 2-way mission (this uses equivalent technology), the mission >>lasts perhaps 60 years (about the time the crew die of old age). >>They can't live the 80 years it takes to get there and back. In >>the case of a .2c 2-way mission (this uses more advanced technology), >>the mission lasts perhaps 50 years (10 years in system). >Far slowrer than an mission suggested by anyone with the possible exception of >you. But it's the mission length implied by the technology level I assumed. I am assuming technology is capable of .2c cruise velocity (e.g. a .4c delta-v capability with mass ratio of 10,000), and that since this is a first manned mission to Alpha Centauri it's impossible to refuel. Given the proximity of .4c delta-v capability to the theoretical limits of fusion rockets, it's not implausible that a technological plateau of that level long enough to justify not waiting for further advances could occur. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Dec 12 08:14 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["732" "Fri" "12" "December" "1997" "11:11:51" "EST" "Gertchen1" "Gertchen1@aol.com" nil "14" "Re: starship-design: Re: StarShip Design: Request and Questions" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA07004 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:14:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.176]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA06926 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:14:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <71b405a5.34916249@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Gertchen1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 731 From: Gertchen1 Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu Cc: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: StarShip Design: Request and Questions Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 11:11:51 EST In a message dated 97-12-10 20:27:01 EST, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu writes: << Hydroponic algae do offer a potentially robust air recycling system, but this would require new research to develop into a working model. There's not enough data yet to know how effective and reliable this would be. It is a low risk technology, though. >> Agreed...... if we suddenly begin exploration of life on other planets, we want to begin ASAP... not take trillions of hours intricately designing reprocessed gases and all that. The design of the ship would probably be relatively simple; long so that many things can be removed from the ship at once, and flat on the top (Similar to an aircraft carrier) for reconnisance...... sounds ok to me! From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Dec 12 09:02 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3595" "Fri" "12" "December" "1997" "11:01:11" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "76" "Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA25751 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:02:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA25637 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:01:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA02778; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 11:01:12 -0600 Message-Id: <9712121701.AA02778@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: from "Kelly St" at Dec 11, 97 11:11:20 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3594 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 11:01:11 -0600 (CST) Kelly St wrote: >If you are for some reason assuming a 2 way trip without refueling, I'm not >sure mearly halving the cruse speed would allow you to stay withing the same >total fuel mass ratio. One possible reason is that there are no resources in the target system with which to refuel. Another reason is that this mission is the first manned mission, and that because of this there isn't enough information about the target system to refuel. And halving the cruise speed is very obviously adequeate to keep the same fuel mass ratio, because the example I pose is one of a rocket. In a rocket design, the maneuvers it can perform are determined by its delta-v (in this case, .4c). A one way trip can have a cruise speed of .2c. A two way trip can have a cruise speed of .1c. [...] >>Hence, the two-way mission will need approximately the same >>amount (and duration needs) of the equipment. >>But two-way will be much more demanding from the fuel/engine >>point of view (as Isaac correctly remarked, not simply two times >>more, but possibly orders of magnitude more). >This makes no sence. If your assuming the same total fuel ration on the ship >for a one or two way mission. You need the same total thrust from the engines >(but of course on the return leg you can stand dropout with less mission >impact). So how could the demands on the engines be orders of magnitude more, >or realisticly even twice as much? At most the engines firing time is twice >as much, but thats separated by years to do check out and servicing. No, he is assuming the same cruise speed, but with different fuel ratios (no refueling). You're the one assuming refueling. Because the fuel ratio goes up so much (e.g. in the case of a 10,000-1 ratio for the one way trip, it goes up by 10,000), the total costs can be many orders of magnitude more. >>Or "leaving them to die" during the long and quite boring >>return flight (of old age/sickness or in a catastrophic accident, >>much more probable during the return flight due to engine wear)? >The return flight would certainly be no more boring then being parked in the >target system. Eaither way you still stuck in the ship with no where to go. >But at least your going back somewhere at the end. It sure would be more boring to me, and anyone else I could imagine going on the first interstellar manned missions! The people on the first manned missions will all be astronomers (even if you send up someone who isn't, by the time he arrives at the target he's an astronomer). It should go without saying that studying another star (let alone two) is a lifetime endeavor. Even if the only sensor available left is the Mk 1 Eyeball and dark sunglasses, it's at least possible to study the stars. (I seriously doubt your assertion that all the sensors and backups fail within a few decades, and find your assertion that telescopes back home can outperform those on site utterly ludicrous. At the very least, we can expect the starship to have a baseline of 1km for LBI telescopes. At 1 light minute away, a telescope back home would need to be 2 million km wide just to compete with the _resolution_; there isn't any atmosphere-less body big enough to anchor all those elements onto. At frequencies where VLBI is practical, the starship can expect a baseline of perhaps 1 light minute, which would require a telescope back home 4 light years wide.) -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Dec 12 09:04 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2071" "Fri" "12" "December" "1997" "10:59:04" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "53" "RE: starship-design: Mean Time Between Failure" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA26554 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:04:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA26533 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:04:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p33.gnt.com [204.49.68.238]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA09872; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 11:03:42 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 11:03:37 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD06ED.98BBC420.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2070 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Mean Time Between Failure Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 10:59:04 -0600 On Friday, December 12, 1997 9:52 AM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > NASA and the military don't build things to last centuries, and have > no incentive to do so. (The former because nothing they build will > be used so long and the latter because anything built today will > be obsolete soon enough.) Wrong. > > Building things to last is an engineering problem, and it can be done. > Ask an engineer to design something that will last 100 or 1000 years, > and he'll go and do it. > Wrong. > The question is--why? Why would you build something designed to last > 1000 years without maintainance? Well, Hoover Dam's massive turbines > are an example of this. There simply isn't any practical way to > perform maintainance on them, so they and their bearings were designed > to last 1000 years (this is undoubtably optimistic, and extrapolating > far beyond any reasonable bounds, but at least they've done well for > the larger part of a century). Wrong. > > There really isn't a big secret to making things last--you keep them > simple and big and heavy rather than miniaturized and pared down to > minimum tolerances. My dad's old Sony turntable and amplifier works > perfectly after 3 decades because they just plain overengineered the > things back then. Advances in technology allowed miniaturizing, > reducing wasted space, and paring down the thicknesses of the case > walls to a minimum, so today's Sony amplifiers are more sophisticated, > smaller, and lighter. But I wouldn't be on them lasting as long. Wrong. > > For today's space missions and military applications, of course, it's > anathema to bulk up components without good reason. Making them last > more than a few decades isn't a good reason for a mission which lasts > only a few years. Wrong. Go get a book and study mission operability and systems reliability. Or, (shudder) work in the field with these military and NASA systems that you seem to have personally designed and know all about their maintenance philosophy. I have, and you obviously haven't. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Dec 12 09:32 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6289" "Fri" "12" "December" "1997" "11:31:58" "-0600" "Isaac Kuo" "kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu" nil "144" "Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Re: debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA09238 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:32:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from bit.csc.lsu.edu (bit.csc.lsu.edu [130.39.130.15]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA09068 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:32:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by bit.csc.lsu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA04557; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 11:31:59 -0600 Message-Id: <9712121731.AA04557@bit.csc.lsu.edu> In-Reply-To: <1274c88d.3490b972@aol.com> from "Kelly St" at Dec 11, 97 11:11:28 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 6288 From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Re: debate Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 11:31:58 -0600 (CST) Kelly St wrote: >In a message dated 12/11/97 12:39:11 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>Conservation of energy has been around for longer than that, and the >>physics of relativity did not invalidate most of the predictions >>made by classical mechanics. >Actually E=mC^2 did violate classical conservation of energy, since no one >ever thought matter and energy were convertable. No doubt similar >'corrections' in our assumptions are ahead of us. What you describe is really the result of two previously unknown forces--the strong and weak forces. In the absense of these, "classical" conservation of energy is correct. The principle of conservation of energy is, in and of itself, not very predictive because you just don't know everywhere that energy can be bound up. General relativity is the one place where the principle of conservation of energy really predicts something. It predicts that space is curved a certain amount by energy (this term is not to be confused with "mass", because mass now exclusively refers to rest mass). That means all energy, not just the energy we currently know how to use. >>What relativity did was it explained a lot of phenomena which didn't >>quite fit classical mechanics. >>The critical difference between classical mechanics and general >>relativity is that there were a lot of natural phenomena which >>didn't fit classical mechanics, and there are NO phenomena (natural >>or manmade) which don't fit general relativity. We might observe >>some phenomena which don't, but we've pushed the bounds to near >>light velocities and haven't found anything inconsistent with it yet. >Actually physisc is full of unexplain phenominon and unexplored energies and >and conditions. Masy we don't even have the equipment to look at yet. Yes, there are unexplained phenomena all over the place. However, there are no observed phenomena (explained or otherwise) which are inconsistent with general relativity. Contrast this with classical mechanics, which had "explained" observed phenomena which were contradictory (light having both wavelike and particlelike properties)! >>>Research into >>>newer physics, capable of far greater power, performance, etc (zero point >>>energy, inertia/mass damping, etc) has progressed to the degree that NASA is >>>funding some conferences and studies on them. >>We will always look for ways around what we know, and research into >>zero point energy and cold fusion is very inexpensive to conduct. >>That doesn't mean there's any credibility to any of it. >True, but their was no credibility to relativity until it was tested. You're right, but relativity has passed all its tests with flying colors. So far zero point energy research is having even less success than early cold fusion research. >>If you honestly think so, then why do you care at all about this >>starship design list's concept? According to your thinking, there >>is no chance that anything we come up with will be anything even >>remotely like what would be worth sending to the stars. >True, in the same way the lunar systems designed by the british interplanetary >society most of a century ago, or those designed by VonBraun in the '50's, >bore little relation to to the apollo systems. But it did show you could go >to the moon with those technologies. That's what I think we should be doing. We aren't here to try and come up with what we think will be the design of the first manned interstellar missions. That's hopeless. What we should try to be doing is trying to find the best thing possible using as conservative technology possible just as a baseline to see if it's possible at all, and at what maximum cost. (Improvements in science and technology will necessarily reduce the mission cost, if our baseline uses only existing technology at existing cost.) >>The predictive power of general relativity is simply too much >>better than what came before, and too heavily tested and confirmed >>by hostile scientists, to put it on the same level as what came >>before. > :) Chavanist. All ages think they found the ultimate truths, all are >superceeded by their succesors. Yes, but it's important to recognize just how much better general relativity is compared to anything that came before. In many ways, it's the most awesome scientific theory ever devised (so far). Despite its radical and highly dubious (to scientists of the time) concepts and masses of skeptical testing, it's stood the test of time. It combined high controversy over its concepts with a perfect record in scientific observations. It's all encompassing nature allowed it to make predictions which could be tested in widely disparate ways. Einstein's said that when he found that general relativity predicted the precession of Mercury, he _knew_ is was correct. >>>You gain increased range due to the larger virtual lens from the array. >>NO YOU DO NOT!!!!!!!! >>YOU DO NOT INCREASE RANGE BY EVEN A SINGLE MILLIMETER. >>The larger virtual lens size is exactly counteracted by the reduced >>efficiency. In other words, if you get a spot which is 1/10 the >>area, it will also have 1/10 the beam energy. You haven't gained >>anything. >>OTOH, you have _lost_ 9/10's of the theoretical optimum beam (the >>optimum beam is if the elements are bunched up shoulder to shoulder). >>Kelly, try and comprehend this one fact, if nothing else. The >>widely spaced array gains you NOTHING. >Thats was countered by oter on this board. To put it blutly. You need that >size to focus at long ranges. If you can't focus the beam, it dosn't matter >how much of it you transmit. No. You are wrong. To put it bluntly. Look. Just calculate the strength of the beam yourself using the calculation of interference between in phase coherent beams. Just do the calculation yourself. Please. Note: a beam does not suddenly disappear at a particular range. It continues to disperse in an asymptotically conical spread. This does mean it places a smaller amount of energy on a particular spot size with distance. That's the way physics works. -- _____ Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo __|_)o(_|__ /___________\ "Mari-san... Yokatta... \=\)-----(/=/ ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Dec 12 09:46 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["10180" "Fri" "12" "December" "1997" "18:45:35" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "238" "Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA15366 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:46:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA15250 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:46:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id SAA05525; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 18:45:35 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199712121745.SAA05525@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 10179 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 18:45:35 +0100 (MET) > From: Kelly St > > In a message dated 12/11/97 6:55:35 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: > > >> From: Kelly St > >> > >> In a message dated 12/8/97 3:24:52 PM, you wrote: > >0ne-way: > > flight there (10 yrs); > > + sustained stay for the rest of the crew (natural) life > > (with life expectancy in space of 70 yrs, age at start 30yrs, > > and flight time 10 yrs, this phase will last 30yrs at most); > > = 40 yrs; > >Two-way: > > flight there (20 yrs); > > + sustained stay for the exploration phase (5 yrs); > > + flight back (20 yrs); > > = 45 yrs. > >may actually be in favor of the one-way mission. > >Not speaking about the fact that those who return from > >the two-way mission will land on Earth five years > >after their life expectancy... > > Only because your assuming a fairly short life expectance. With the high > risk environment of a mission like that, that might be justifiable, > but for planing purposes you'ld have to assume longer. > Why I should? But even assuming 80 yrs (which would be stretching things a bit), the numbers above do not change significantly (it would be 50yrs for one-way and 45yrs for two way). > >Hence, the two-way mission will need approximately the same > >amount (and duration needs) of the equipment. > >But two-way will be much more demanding from the fuel/engine > >point of view (as Isaac correctly remarked, not simply two times > >more, but possibly orders of magnitude more). > > This makes no sence. If your assuming the same total fuel ration on the > ship for a one or two way mission. You need the same total thrust from > the engines (but of course on the return leg you can stand dropout with > less mission impact). So how could the demands on the engines be > orders of magnitude more, or realisticly even twice as much? > At most the engines firing time is twice as much, > Ask Isaac, he is more competent in these matters than me. > but thats separated by years to do check out and servicing. > But what about "shell life"? Also, for check out and servicing you will need spare parts (for engines, they may be quite huge!) and manufacturing capablity, which you may as well spend for durable one-way mission habitat building and maintenance instead. > >Hence, which would cost more - still REMAINS DEBATABLE. > > > >Note also that in order to not became a suicide mission, > >the two-way mission plan must ALSO be capable to safely change it > >into one-way at target when the return flight becomes impossible > >for some quite probable reasons (engine failure, problems > >with fuel mining at target, etc.). > > That would be desirable, but increasing the service life by more then 50% > Huh? As I have calculated at the beginning, the time durability for one-way and two-way missions is comparable, certainly not so much different as by 50%. > would probably require MAJOR scale up in the ship systems and crew, which > would probably be untenable. Contingencies for those problems that allow > a return would need to be factored in, or a possible rescue mission (i.e. > diverting the next ship that could have been planed to be launched to > another star). > Rescue mission? After you received the mayday signal (4yrs) and been able to arrive with the rescue ship (+20 yrs, see above) they will be long dead without the one-way capability! > >> No, we would not go somewhere just to go to an outpost. In itself, > >> an outpost isn't a goal or a reason for going somewhere. > >> At best its a tool to allow you to do something there. > >> At worst its a stunt. (Been there, done that, took > >> our bows, and went home.) > >> > >Ahh, but the above applies even stronger to the two-way mission > >(especially the "and went home" part ;-)). > > I don't follow that statement. It sounds like your saying if we have no > reason to go somewhere (or go back to) then stay there perminently? > Huh? Now I do not understand what you are speaking about... Let me recapitulate: You said in the above that an outpost building would be only a stunt, and the you preceeded to defina a stunt as "(Been there, done that, took our bows, and went home.)". Now I remarked, that with that "and went home" part your definition of "stunt" applies as well (or even better) to a two-way mission. Which I then summed up with the sentence: > > > >Hence, from this point of view one-way and two-way seem equivalent... > > which sentence you seemingly overlooked. Got it this time? > >> If your assuming a maned outpost, it would be a strong incentive to > >> cancel the first mission. I.E. to prevent being forced to eather: > >> send a retriaval expidition to bring them back, or to take the heat > >> for leaving them to die for some Apollo like stunt. > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> > >You again with that "leaving them to die" rhetoric... > >And "leaving them to die" back on Earth is so much better? > > Yes, obviously, for reasons I've stated several times, including above. > Huh? What is so more sweet with dying on Earth rather than somewhere else? > >Or "leaving them to die" during the long and quite boring > >return flight (of old age/sickness or in a catastrophic accident, > >much more probable during the return flight due to engine wear)? > > The return flight would certainly be no more boring then being parked > in the target system. Eaither way you still stuck in the ship with > no where to go. But at least your going back somewhere at the end. > In order to be stuck on Earth, and nowhere to go? ;-) I understand that one may be bored to stay all his life on just this tiny and crowded planet. So I understand he may wish to go to the stars and explore and then (when lazy of old age) at least observe at close ranges other planets (and another star). But I do not understand why going from these very interesting circumstances back to that boring and crowded planet can he call as so desirable "going back somewhere"? > >Yes, before undertaking an insterstellar mission we must be > >already a very spacefaring civilization - in fact I have repeated > >this several times in our discussions in the past (and in the next > >paragraph of my previous letter too, see below). > >However, going interstellar will be the logical and ncessary > >NEXT step to become really spacefaring, not merely in-system-faring... > >We all agree that interstellar travel is orders of magnitude > >harder than in-system, hence being able to launch a starship > >will certainly signify that we are much more spacefaring > >than before. > > But, within the technical limits of the designs were coming up with. There > are no practical benifits, and some significal costs) to launching such a > mission. So launching it can't be considered important for the survival of > the civilization, in the sence of the quoted comment. I.E. It does not > offer the potential to increse resorces andmaerial, or ranges, > accessable to human civilization. > Posibly not from point of view of current times. For us now a "survival of civilization" priority task is certainly to settle our system, NOT going to the stars. But when the system will be settled (and becoming crowded, or some nearby star is detected to be probably going supernova in say, a thousand years, or so...) the start of interstellar travel will be a must too. > >> >Without opening a real big frontier in space, the humanity will > >> >decline even faster and earlier than we may expect. > >> >The symptoms are already quite visible. > >> > >> I'm not sure what your talking about as symptoms, > >> > >One example - a prominent member of the interstellar travel > >discussion list so strongly opposed to even considering > >one-way missions as a discussion option! ;-( > > Because they have significant increased costs political, social, and , > economic and have no corresponding advantage. (and their is the moral > issue involved.) > I know, Kelly, that you are probably totally immune to arguments in this particular area, since despite a mountain of arguments (and even name-calling at times ;-) you are still stubbornly repeating the same old buzzwords. But there are many pepople that differ with you on this issue and are eager to go to a one-way mission. As the old Roman rule says, the willing is not harmed. If there are people eager to go to stars that have no need to and see no meaning in travelling back dangerously tens of years only to be put into grave here, there is NO moral issue in letting them go. Period. > >> Personally I think interest in space will perk up when space does do. > >> things. At the moments its effects have been quite underwelming given > >> the levels of effort. A more productive space program, should gain > >> more interest and approval. > >> > >Possibly, let us hope so. > >But without a vision and exploration spirit in plenty, > >there will be NO "more productive space program", > >or even any space program. > > > >Agreed? > > Not really. Most of the growth in space systems and programs, especially > up to the scale needed for a project like this, would have to come from > commercial interests, not from exploration, political, or scientific > interests. Such interests are making serious moves toward space, but have > to dismantal governmently roadblocks and sanctions. I'm not sure if you'ld > consider that "...a vision and exploration spirit in plenty.."? > Certainly, dismantling all that "governmently roadblocks and sanctions", requires "...a vision and exploration spirit in plenty" (we there in Poland should know...). But of course, commercial interests are not a goal, they are a means (many there in the U.S. might have forgotten that ;-). The goal is civilization survival (not exactly, but near...). But to connect this goal, one's individual "sense of life", and the "going to space" proposed means, one certainly needs "...a vision and exploration spirit in plenty". Do you think a stock broker arrives some day, between assesing ups and downs of toadys market indicators, at the overwhelming urge to go to stars, just by himself? ;-) -- Zenon From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Dec 12 09:49 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["16126" "Thu" "11" "December" "1997" "20:22:59" "-0800" "owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" "owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" nil "389" "starship-design: BOUNCE starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu: Admin request of type /^\\s*which\\s*$/i at line 6 " "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA18083 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:49:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA18077 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:49:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <199712120422.UAA28245@darkwing.uoregon.edu> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 16125 From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: BOUNCE starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu: Admin request of type /^\s*which\s*$/i at line 6 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:22:59 -0800 (PST) >From stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 11 20:22:57 1997 Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.176]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA28227 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:22:55 -0800 (PST) From: Kelly St Message-ID: <430e268e.3490b96c@aol.com> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:11:01 EST Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) In a message dated 12/11/97 7:53:47 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: ===> >>True I was suggesting a service life goal for a 2 way ship at 40 years, which >>seems a streach, but probably doable. But adding a few decades on the end >>would significantly cut your odds. > >40 years? You mean we're just going to go there and immediately >come back? Now _that_ sounds like a sad waste. 12 years to get there, 12 years to get back here, 8 year in systems survey, resuply, and servicing time, 8 year reserve capacity. >But then again, you are also assuming twice the delta-v capability, >which could blow up the fuel costs a thousandfold or more. It came out to a 400 to 1 fuel ratio. About $40 billion worth of Lithium-6 at current market rates. ===> >>Actually since you need all engines working to brake you into >>the system, but can take as long as you like to burn you way >>back up to speed on the way back, the return boost can afford >>for most of the engines to fail or be dumped. > >Huh? It's symmetric. You can afford many of your braking engines >to fail during "storage"--you just need to start your deceleration >run earlier. Naturally, you will start the run early enough so >that you have room to spare in case some engines fail during the >braking run. You won't know if they've died on the shelf until you test them and fire them up. In any even I was more worried about burn outs during operation. You presumably have enough reserve thrust to throatle up the other engines to compensate. But if you lose to much thrust you'll over shoot. >For the return journey, OTOH, you can't just take as long as you >like. You need to get back before your supplies run out, and >losing most of your engines could result in extending your >acceleration run several decades, assuming you somehow (how?) >refuel in system. The accel run is only a year or two even for the fuel/sail. Loseing half you engines isn't likely to over run your 8 year mission pad. >If you're not refueling in system, then you can afford only a >few rockets remaining for your return acceleration because of >the greatly reduced mass relaxing thrust requirements. > >If you are refueling in system in a fuel/sail like starship, >then the mass during the deceleration run and the return >acceleration run are equivalent. Losses in rockets in either >leg have the same effect on extending the mission time. > >If you are refueling in system in a pure rocket starship, then >you can ill afford much loss in rockets because of the greatly >_increased_ mass compared to during the deceleration run. > >Engine failures for the deceleration and return acceleration runs >will both extend the mission time. Extending the mission time isn't a big problem. Over shooting the system by light weeks could be. >>>2. Oxygen recycling and CO2 scrubbers. At least with current >>> technology, they have a limited expected life span, but >>> they are relatively lightwieght so many spares can be >>> carried. I'm not sure about their shelf life. > >>Scrubbers wouldn't work, but we could synthasis the ox out of water in the >>air. (Odd bit of matabolism I found. The ox we breathing winds up in the >>water we excreat, the ox in the CO2 comes from other sources. weird.) > >Not really. That's the way respiration works. > >>>3. Water recycling. I'm not sure about this part. > >>Boil it to steam and condese it out. Replace burned out reaction chambers >>every few years(?). Foutunately stainless steel is plantifull in asteroids. > >Stainless steel isn't plentiful anywhere except maybe landfills. It >has to be refined. This is something where spares will have to be >brought, but these spares should last practically forever in >storage. It is plentiful in asteroids. I.E. nickel iron asteroids. The metal ores rich enough to use with little processing. Not the best grade, but acceptable. >>>4. Food storage. Irradiated canned food will easily last a couple >>> hundred years. > >>The containers arn't likely to last for centuries! > >In low pressure storage hermetically sealed in inert gas? I don't >see why not. Theyll corrode with the chemicals in the food. ===>> >>>>>Why would the crew be wearing out? We'd be getting old after a >>>>>while, but at that point it would be getting less and less >>>>>important to have the equipment last much longer. > >>>>It has to keep working for the crew to keep living. If it >>>>needs repair NOW, you can't just hope it woun't fail for >>>>a decade or two for the last crewman to die. It almost >>>>certainly will fail in months to years. > >>>Why would it almost certainly fail in months or years? Exactly >>>what mission critical components are certain to fail, even with >>>triple redundancy? (If there's only one or two crew left, >>>the life support systems will be well below capacity.) > >>How many months with out service would you expect your car to keep runing >>after the check engine light comes on? > >Not too long, but if I have 5 cars I can live with one of them >breaking down. Remember, we're talking about the last one or two >survivors living in a habitat designed for at least a dozen. >That leaves a lot of room for redundancy. However a life support system built to supply hudreds might have serious troubles running only for two or three. >>Why do you think ship and subs keep >>such large maintenece crews, and airplaces often need days of support crew >>time for every hour they fly. This stuff takes a beating. And if any of the >>parts cut out, the system starts to fail. > >Yes, that stuff takes a beating. They're combat machines that have >to directly compete with their own kind. This starship isn't some >combat machine, and it's going to take things nice and slow. At .4c? We obviousl have different ideas of slow. ;) ===>> >>>>Your sending people out to to a decade or two of work (at most until the >>>>exploration gear become unservicable) and then sit in the deralic ship until >>>>they die. > >>>Why would the exploration gear become unservicable so quickly? >>>At the very least, we can expect handheld optical telescopes >>>to last hundreds of years. Even that alone, at such a close >>>range, is enough to do serious scientific observations impossible >>>from the Solar System. (Even if we figured out a way to make >>>astronomically huge optical telescopes able to equal their >>>resolution, we could not make fine corona observations since >>>we'd lack the ability to shade out the photosphere.) > >>Actually telescopes arn't worth sending, you can see the systems perfectly >>well from here with a big enough scope. FAR easier to build a scope here with >>a synthetic apiture a few light secounds across, rather then keep a 1 meter >>scope working a few light years from home. > >You won't be able to easily shade the photosphere. We have as far back as skylab, can't see why we would forget by 2050. >>Yes you can shade out the photosphere from here, especially from space. > >With your "synthetic aperture" telescope, you'd need a shade at least >the size of your synthetic aperture and it would have to be placed >in interstellar space between the target star and your telescope >system (it has to appear the same size as the target star). Or a separte small shade in each scope. >>Or, you could use electronic imaging systems that can see the corona >>without blocking the photosphere. > >Doesn't work with LBI. Why? >>No observation studies (assuming you can keep the scopes working without >>needing to strip their aiming and stabalization systems, or cooling, or the >>rest), arn't going to cut it. You have to get direct data from drop probes or >>samples, preferable bringing some samples home where the better lab gear is. > >Samples? Samples of what? Sure, there _might_ be planetoids around >Alpha Centauri. But those can be visited directly with the ship, >if need be. Big planets with significant gravitational fields would >present a problem, but there's no reason for us to currently expect >any such things orbiting there. Binary star systems don't make for >too many stable orbits. Binaries can have stable orbits, thou they have to be much greater, or smaller then the distence between the stars. (3 star in the Centauri system as I remember.) Besides if theirs isn't any planets to speak of, theirs no reason to go. You can study the star nearly as well from here, and the difference isn't worth sending a ship for. >>>>Thats effectivly a suicide mission. I know a few folks in this group >>>>disagree, or don't care, but it still would meen no government on earth >>could >>>>get permision for such a mission. I.E. your throwing away a crew for no >>>>critical reason. Specifically your doing it to save money, which is really >>>>not going to sell. > >>>By your logic, life is a suicide mission. No matter what, you're >>>going to die somewhere. > >>>Honestly, if I and others like me were sent on a _2_ way mission, We'd >>>be more than halfway tempted to disobey orders and simply stay. > >>>That aside, the crew isn't thrown away. They're simply taking the >>>"retirement plan" of their choice. > >>How many ships crew, deside to beach their ship and hope they die before it >>does? > >How is this question relevant? No oceangoing ship ever built is even >remotely like the starships we're discussing. Because that your senerop. Go to the system. Do you mission for a few years until the gear burns out. Then hole up in the deralict ship for the rest of your life. >>Or how many arctic explorers would agree to go knowing they'ld live out >>their days in those cramped tents or shacks in the ice. Nothing to do but try >>to stay alive a few days longer. > >The arctic is frankly a pretty boring place. Alpha Centauri is pretty >exciting place. How? You don't even expect their to be any planets or much asteroids to look at? the Arctic would be comparativly busy and comfortable. >>>Anyway, doing something to save money has long been a strong selling >>>point. That's why Mars pathfinder is this tiny little cart which >>>can't even send data up to orbit rather than the originally >>>envisionned self-sufficient rovers bristling with sensors. It's >>>why Magellan has only the rather limited radar rather than radar, >>>IR, and optical, and it's why they trashed it into Venus's >>>atmosphere when it could have continued operating it for years. > >>People don't mind you using expendable equipment and abandoning it when your >>done, but they get very upset when you do the same to personel. > >These people aren't being abandonned. They are sent to do a mission, then left their to die when the mission is finished. That sounds like abandonment by my dictionary. ===>>> >>Also you might note my Explorer system has over a .3 c cruse speed, and the >>fuel sail has over a .4c cruse speed. .1 or .2c speeds would require flight >>times of 20-50 years each way. Totally unfeasable. > >A 20 year 1-way trip is what we're discussing. The tacit assumption >is that a faster cruise speed is unavailable. Assuming a straight >fusion rocket like a highly refined MagOrion, a delta-v limit of >..4c (which implies a cruise speed of .1c) is rather reasonable. >This assumes the fusion rocket comes within an order of magnitude >of the theoretical maximum. Whos we? I never heard you mentioned this assumption, or specify such a ship, and I've repeatedly refured to the fuel ratios and speed capacities of the fuel sail. >Honestly, I'd be half tempted to go on a .1c 1-way trip (40 years). >I picked .2c since it was fast enough so that I would _jump_ at >the opportunity to go. Given the slow speed, you'ld push the service life of systems, which would demand a bigger heavier ship to allow the added service life. It would be cheaper to just up your fuel mass ratio, and get their quicker. Also with a 40 year flight virtually all your crew would be in their 70's and 80's, and be 40 years out of practice and behind the times. >>>>Past >>>>that your need to strip those systems for pars to regulate life support, >>>>medical, etc.. > >>>Huh? Keeping the systems alive will be a matter of repairing them >>>with spares. There's not much commonality between a CO2 scrubber >>>and an IR camera. > >>The IR cameras cryo cooler, aiming motors, and electronics could be used in >>everything from food processors to refrigeration systems, the images might be >>needed for medical, etc.. > >It's theoretically possible to share those components, but entirely >impractical once you look at the differences between the systems. >A cryogenic cooler designed to cool a small space to 5 degrees K >isn't going to be much like a refrigerator designed to cool a large >space to 5 degrees Fahrenheit. The micrometer stepping motors for >slowly slewing a camera with minimum vibration are radically >different from a brushless DC motor designed to run an air pump. >About the only common electronics components would be assorted >resistors, capacitors, and microcontrollers, but you're going to >have thousands of these in storage. The camera itself is designed >for focus at infinity, which is very different from anything you'd >want for medical imaging... The lens would be different, the imagining chipcould be the same. In general to keep the spare parts count don't everything would be designedto use the same standard parts. Cryo coolers for long term storage to low thermal imaging. Motors for..etc.. >>>Most of the time spent on a manned spaceship, at least currently, is >>>keeping yourself alive. That's a given. But really that's not so >>>different from life here on Earth (especially if you're a farmer). > >>Very little of the time spent in current life is related to survival. >>Probably less then 1/5-1/20th (depending on how you figure it). > >Most people work at least 40 hours a week, and spend maybe 8 hours >a week just eating. Not counting 8 hours a day for sleeping (which, >if anything, counts towards time used up surviving), that's 43% of >the time. And if you assume you grocery bill is $80 per week, Rent and utilities $150 per week. $15- $20 and hour pre tax/benifits ave salery. You work about 12 - 15 hours a week for survival. >If you're a farmer, then you probably spend a lot more time working. > >>The scientists on the crew would be there to do science and >>support personel would keep the ship runing. > >At least for the cruise leg, everyone on board would be there to >keep the ship running, but it should be easy going early on. At >the target system, everyone on board should be there to "do >science". Even someone completely unfamiliar with astronomy >at the beginning of the mission could learn as much about >astronomy as any PhD in 20 years. The ship will need about as much servicing on the cruse as anywhere, the mission systems (shuttles, probes, minning systems, etc..) will need a lot more. So the support crew to do all that would need to grosely outweigh the scientists or landing survey crews. The latter would need to be separte folks or they would never have any time to do research work. >>But as the ship deteriorated it would require >>exponential growth in sevicing, and the science gear, crew, and >>systems would be droped, or canabalized to service the rest. > >As I stated before, the ship would be maintained with replacement >parts, rather than canabalizing components. >-- > _____ Isaac Kuo Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Dec 12 11:05 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1188" "Fri" "12" "December" "1997" "14:00:54" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "25" "RE: starship-design: Mean Time Between Failure" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA28376 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 11:05:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA28355 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 11:05:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 14:00:55 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 1187 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu'" , "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Mean Time Between Failure Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 14:00:54 -0500 > ---------- > From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu[SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] > Subject: Re: starship-design: Mean Time Between Failure > > The question is--why? Why would you build something designed to last > 1000 years without maintainance? Well, Hoover Dam's massive turbines > are an example of this. There simply isn't any practical way to > perform maintainance on them, so they and their bearings were designed > to last 1000 years (this is undoubtably optimistic, and extrapolating > far beyond any reasonable bounds, but at least they've done well for > the larger part of a century). > All of Hoover Dam's 17 original turbines were replaced between 1986 and 1993 - only fifty years after being installed. Maintenance WAS performed on them many times before their replacement. It is, in fact, very easy to perform maintenance on them, as shutting off the flow of water to the turbine is a simple matter. ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Dec 12 15:38 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2983" "Fri" "12" "December" "1997" "17:36:43" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "69" "RE: Re: starship-design: Re: Re: debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA25910 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:37:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA25815 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:37:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p36.gnt.com [204.49.68.241]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA09501; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 17:37:37 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 17:37:34 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD0724.A13BA660.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Length: 2982 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Isaac Kuo'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: Re: Re: debate Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 17:36:43 -0600 On Friday, December 12, 1997 11:32 AM, Isaac Kuo [SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] wrote: > What you describe is really the result of two previously unknown > forces--the strong and weak forces. In the absense of these, > "classical" conservation of energy is correct. Which makes Kelly's statement true. They WERE absent according to what he said. > Contrast this with classical mechanics, which had "explained" > observed phenomena which were contradictory (light having both > wavelike and particlelike properties)! Which is exactly the point at which quantum mechanics is at the moment... > You're right, but relativity has passed all its tests with flying > colors. No, it hasn't. > That's what I think we should be doing. We aren't here to try and > come up with what we think will be the design of the first manned > interstellar missions. That's hopeless. Again, you are wrong. David already asked you once, go read the charter. > What we should try to be doing is trying to find the best thing > possible using as conservative technology possible just as a > baseline to see if it's possible at all, and at what maximum cost. > (Improvements in science and technology will necessarily reduce > the mission cost, if our baseline uses only existing technology > at existing cost.) As usual, you have taken it upon yourself to decide what is right. I'm beginning to think you should have been a priest during the inquisition. > Yes, but it's important to recognize just how much better general > relativity is compared to anything that came before. In many ways, > it's the most awesome scientific theory ever devised (so far). > Despite its radical and highly dubious (to scientists of the time) > concepts and masses of skeptical testing, it's stood the test of > time. It combined high controversy over its concepts with a perfect > record in scientific observations. It's all encompassing nature > allowed it to make predictions which could be tested in widely > disparate ways. Einstein's said that when he found that general > relativity predicted the precession of Mercury, he _knew_ is was > correct. I'll give credit where credit is due. You finally said something sensible. > No. You are wrong. To put it bluntly. No, he is right and again you didn't bother to read what he said. The aperture diameter for a given spot size, wavelength and distance is governed by Rayleigh's Criteria. Which is the only thing Kelly is talking about. He very specifically said he wasn't talking about total power delivered to the sail. You simply ignored what he said. The fresnel lens concept was originally proposed as a focusing mechanism to provide the correct aperture, irregardless of whether the original emitter was a single emitter or an array of emitters. Incidentally, you seem to be a lone voice crying in the wilderness. A review of the literature turns up absolutely no proposals for a single emitter, so exactly what is your point? Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Dec 13 10:28 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1145" "Sat" "13" "December" "1997" "13:21:17" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "28" "Re: RE: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA01273 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 10:28:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.174]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA01267 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 10:28:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <7db0f68c.3492d308@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1144 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 13:21:17 EST In a message dated 12/11/97 9:44:47 PM, david@actionworld.com wrote: >> ---------- >> From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu[SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu] >> Subject: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) >> >> OTOH, if we saw intelligent life with interstellar capability, it >> would be imperative we develop similar capability. Even if the >> aliens were "friendly", we'd be at quite a disadvantage if we lagged >> behind in interstellar capability. We must not allow a mineshaft gap! >> >Well, while I agree this scenario would work, the problem for our >purposes is that if this were a true event, and we could find that an >intelligent species at interstellar distances had the capability for >interstellar travel, we'd probably also be able to tell something about >their means of transportation, which would give us hints as to which >road to go down, technologically speaking. Since this isn't happening, >we really can't discuss the relative merits of alien technology on this >list. >------------------------------------------------------ >David Levine First you coax them to come over and visit, they you steel their ship! ;) Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Dec 13 16:04 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1436" "Sun" "14" "December" "1997" "01:03:33" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "36" "Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA06138 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 16:04:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA06058 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 16:04:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-002.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xh1Z3-001W1qC; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 01:05:45 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1435 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 01:03:33 +0100 Hello Zenon, >> Euthanasia is ending your life prematurely when all that is left is an >> unworthy way of living (ie. with pain, or without a mind). >> Going on a one-way mission means that you likely have to die >> (or even want to die) before your life becomes unworthy of living. > >I rather see that differently, but it would be too much off topic >to discuss it here, I am afraid. Only two remarks: > >- I am not against suicide as such (i.e., I can be against it > as a way of solving the problem [or from, say, religious reasons], > but I grant the right of a person to choose such a solution), > but I am against suicide assisted by others, for whatever reasons. While a one-way mission is not pure suicide, the World does assist the crew to go on a mission that may cause them to die prematurely. >- If going on a one-way mission assumes "wanting to die", > thet it is a suicide mission, not a one-way mission. > Did the settlers of other continets went there because > they wanted to die? I wonder if settlers can be compared with explorers. Settlers likely expect to die of old age with their family (offspring) to take care of them the few last years. Depending on the ability to repair the ship, the crew may die due to equipment failure. And while the first of the crew will die while others are around to take care of them, the last members alive may hope to just not wake up the next morning. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Dec 13 16:06 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["855" "Sun" "14" "December" "1997" "01:03:31" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "23" "Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA06442 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 16:06:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA06433 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 16:06:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-002.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xh1Z1-001W12C; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 01:05:43 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 854 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 01:03:31 +0100 Hi Isaac, >>>That wouldn't be an extremely pressing reason to go, unless that >>>life included intelligent life which are developing or have >>>developed their own interstellar travel capability. >> >>Well, if that doesn't make the public crazy enough to donate a huge amount >>of money, then what does? > >I hope it would be enough to "find" life on another planet, but... >...apparently it's not enough of a reason to go even to Mars. Going to Mars is about searching for life. For the public whom reacts according to "seeing is believing" that is completely true from knowing something about chances of something to be true. (Think about how people react to an accident happening to them compared to them knowing that accidents happen.) Besides this Mars is not about intelligent life, which was an essential of the above paragraph (>>>) Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Dec 14 08:01 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1202" "Sun" "14" "December" "1997" "17:00:39" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "26" "starship-design: Does a one-way mission need mining?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA29568 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 08:01:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA29554 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 08:01:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-016.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xhGVJ-001XFMC; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 17:02:53 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1201 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Does a one-way mission need mining? Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 17:00:39 +0100 Hi Kelly, >>-- If not, then you probably can carry more >>than enough supplies instead of the fuel for the return trip. >>So assuming we get the fuel in the target system, there has to be some not >>so small unit (probably multiple units) that mines asteroids or planets for >>fuel. >>For a one-way mission that not so small unit can be replaced by many small >>specialized units that can be used for all (un)thinkable repairs. > >Possibly. If you alot a few thousand tons of specialized gear for mining and >refining, you could asume a similar amount for extra spares and suplies. I wasn't thinking of so much of mining. It would probably be more useful to store some amount of refined materials onboard. With smaller equipment these materials and broken (but still rather pure) parts could be made into whatever new parts are needed. (Maybe some of these refined materials could be used in the shielding) Furthermore we wouldn't need to use the same refinement methods used here on Earth. Earthbound economic refinement methods likely have to be energy efficient and usable for bulk amounts, these requirements wouldn't be needed for a starship where energy is supposed to be abundant. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Dec 14 08:02 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1990" "Sun" "14" "December" "1997" "17:00:36" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "42" "starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA29669 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 08:02:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA29662 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 08:02:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-016.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xhGVH-001XCvC; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 17:02:51 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1989 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 17:00:36 +0100 >>Before making the discussion unnecessary long: What kind of repairs do you >>consider to be mayor and to be necessary in 60 years but not within 30? > >More structural repair due to fatigue and corosion. Power cables and >distrabution systems, reaction vessels for life support reactions (distilation >of water, air processing and synthasis, etc), plumbing, ductwork, pumps, >bearings for the hab centrafuge, etc. Also electronics get increasingly >erratic at those ages. But is designing for a doubling of lifetime impossible in the next few decades? In what way can current Eartly goods be compared to the equipment we need. Are there any goods of which lifetime doesn't depend on costeffectiveness? (Ie. Are there manufacturers for whom it pays to design a 3 times more expensive product but with a 2 times longer lifetime?) >Food also becomes an issue. For some reason 40 years of freezedried food doesn't soon very appealing. I guess that potato chips may be a useful food source after all. ;) >Paradoxicly the engines to boost back are fairly safe. They don't need >complex micro systems, and being unpowered arn't under load or much thermal >stress. Due to the large scale these engines and reactors must be. Minor >corosion on metal to metal contact points isn't critical. To be stable the >engines would have to stick to simple stable alloys (copper vers super >conductors etc.), which would also increase stability. While an engine may be more robust than "micro systems", it also has to cope with orders of magnitude more stresses. Won't these stresses speed up metal fatigue beyond proportion? >So a 2 way flight puts most stress on the drive systems, which generally have >only been used for a few months, but least on te general suport systems for >the ship which have alread been in use for deacades. It does however need to gather bulk amounts of fuel in the target system. (Assuming you don't need other infrastructure like beaming stations.) Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Dec 14 18:31 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1389" "Sun" "14" "December" "1997" "13:29:17" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "34" "RE: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA13488 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 18:31:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA13473 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 18:31:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p3.gnt.com [204.49.68.208]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA29932; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 20:31:04 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 20:30:50 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD08CF.2ABCA320.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1388 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Timothy van der Linden'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 13:29:17 -0600 On Sunday, December 14, 1997 10:01 AM, Timothy van der Linden [SMTP:TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl] wrote: > > But is designing for a doubling of lifetime impossible in the next few > decades? I think I would plan on it. > While an engine may be more robust than "micro systems", it also has to > cope > with orders of magnitude more stresses. Won't these stresses speed up > metal > fatigue beyond proportion? I would think that the engines would experience the greatest amount of wear and tear of the entire system. In fact, it may be advisable to plan on a complete rebuild or a complete replacement set for the trip back. It really depends upon the eventual mission profile and burn time though. I don't remember the exact number, but current thrusters that are being researched (not built) top out at only a few thousand hours of use. For a mission profile built around an initial boost with a long coast phase this probably wouldn't be a problem (3 months = 2,000 hours). If it becomes possible to boost continuously, then we are looking at engine service lifetimes around 20,000 hours assuming a rebuild at the other end (or one way). Incidentally, that is sufficient boost time to take us practically anywhere in the local group. Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 15 07:40 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2012" "Mon" "15" "December" "1997" "16:33:04" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "46" "Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA15058 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 07:40:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA14957 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 07:39:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA15826; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 16:33:04 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199712151533.QAA15826@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2011 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 16:33:04 +0100 (MET) > From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) > > >> Euthanasia is ending your life prematurely when all that is left is an > >> unworthy way of living (ie. with pain, or without a mind). > >> Going on a one-way mission means that you likely have to die > >> (or even want to die) before your life becomes unworthy of living. > > > >I rather see that differently, but it would be too much off topic > >to discuss it here, I am afraid. Only two remarks: > > > >- I am not against suicide as such (i.e., I can be against it > > as a way of solving the problem [or from, say, religious reasons], > > but I grant the right of a person to choose such a solution), > > but I am against suicide assisted by others, for whatever reasons. > > While a one-way mission is not pure suicide, the World does assist the crew > to go on a mission that may cause them to die prematurely. > In a two-way mission the crew may also die prematurely, which does not make a two-way mission "not pure suicide". In this respect, I see no difference between one-way and two-way missions. > >- If going on a one-way mission assumes "wanting to die", > > thet it is a suicide mission, not a one-way mission. > > Did the settlers of other continets went there because > > they wanted to die? > > I wonder if settlers can be compared with explorers. > Settlers likely expect to die of old age with their family (offspring) to > take care of them the few last years. > Depending on the ability to repair the ship, the crew may die due to > equipment failure. And while the first of the crew will die while others > are around to take care of them, the last members alive may hope to just > not wake up the next morning. > Yes, I agree that there are differences. As any analogy, this one is also not perfect. I wanted only to point out that the lack of possibility (or desire) to return back home from a mission does not nessarily mean that one must "want to die" in order to go for such a mission. -- Zenon From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 15 07:58 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1323" "Mon" "15" "December" "1997" "09:56:43" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "32" "RE: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA19996 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 07:58:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA19987 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 07:58:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p7.gnt.com [204.49.68.212]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA14958; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:56:58 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:56:54 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD093F.C625D640.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1322 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Zenon Kulpa'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:56:43 -0600 On Monday, December 15, 1997 9:33 AM, Zenon Kulpa [SMTP:zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl] wrote: > > > Yes, I agree that there are differences. > As any analogy, this one is also not perfect. > I wanted only to point out that the lack of possibility > (or desire) to return back home from a mission > does not nessarily mean that one must "want to die" > in order to go for such a mission. > And I still think it is important that you consider the type of people who will most likely be going on this mission. The "crew" as opposed to the "scientists" of an exploration or outpost mission will mostly be people who have been living and working in space their whole lives. They will probably have a very different outlook on living in a ship or station orbiting another star for the "rest" of their lives. One star is as good as another you might say. Historically, however, explorers always plan on returning. Colonists on the other hand, don't. We don't consider them to be suicidal... Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- PLEASE NOTE: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That When the Consumer Is Not Directly Observing This Product, It May Cease to Exist or Will Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 15 09:33 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1212" "Mon" "15" "December" "1997" "12:29:37" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "31" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Re: debate" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA25750 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:33:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.172]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA25707 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:33:10 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <904d1c5b.34956920@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1211 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Re: debate Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:29:37 EST In a message dated 12/12/97 12:58:59 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >>>If you honestly think so, then why do you care at all about this >>>starship design list's concept? According to your thinking, there >>>is no chance that anything we come up with will be anything even >>>remotely like what would be worth sending to the stars. > >>True, in the same way the lunar systems designed by the british interplanetary >>society most of a century ago, or those designed by VonBraun in the '50's, >>bore little relation to to the apollo systems. But it did show you could go >>to the moon with those technologies. > >That's what I think we should be doing. We aren't here to try and >come up with what we think will be the design of the first manned >interstellar missions. That's hopeless. > >What we should try to be doing is trying to find the best thing >possible using as conservative technology possible just as a >baseline to see if it's possible at all, and at what maximum cost. >(Improvements in science and technology will necessarily reduce >the mission cost, if our baseline uses only existing technology >at existing cost.) Thats pretty much what we've been doing for the last 4 years. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 15 09:36 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1044" "Mon" "15" "December" "1997" "12:29:31" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "32" "Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA26874 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:36:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.166]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA26859 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:36:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1043 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:29:31 EST In a message dated 12/12/97 12:01:15 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: >Kelly St wrote: >>In a message dated 12/11/97 8:59:42 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: > >>>>Materials inspace are FAR more avalible, and orders of magnitude higher in >>>>purity. Stainless steel for example can be mined in almost finished alloy >>>>form, oil and petrochemicals can be scooped up by the montain load etc. > >>>In order to build a habitat, you have a lot more diverse resources >>>than just something to build a big tin can. A place to live can >>>be built out of rock, or cement. The primary other things you need >>>to live are oxygen and hydrogen. On some planets this is a problem, >>>but on others it isn't. > >>Water ice and other gas mixtures are also ver common in asteroids and comet >>cores. > >Yes, but the amounts available won't be as much as that available on >a planet. We're talkjing billions of tons at a shot, with minimal transport costs. How thirsty are you? ;) Also Many planets aer pretty dry. > _____ Isaac Kuo Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 15 11:10 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1749" "Mon" "15" "December" "1997" "14:07:03" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "39" "Re: starship-design: Does a one-way mission need mining?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA10790 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 11:10:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.165]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA10768 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 11:10:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <33db1fe0.34957fe2@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1748 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Does a one-way mission need mining? Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 14:07:03 EST In a message dated 12/14/97 10:57:30 AM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >Hi Kelly, > >>>-- If not, then you probably can carry more >>>than enough supplies instead of the fuel for the return trip. >>>So assuming we get the fuel in the target system, there has to be some not >>>so small unit (probably multiple units) that mines asteroids or planets for >>>fuel. >>>For a one-way mission that not so small unit can be replaced by many small >>>specialized units that can be used for all (un)thinkable repairs. >> >>Possibly. If you alot a few thousand tons of specialized gear for mining and >>refining, you could asume a similar amount for extra spares and suplies. > >I wasn't thinking of so much of mining. It would probably be more useful to >store some amount of refined materials onboard. With smaller equipment these >materials and broken (but still rather pure) parts could be made into >whatever new parts are needed. >(Maybe some of these refined materials could be used in the shielding) >Furthermore we wouldn't need to use the same refinement methods used here on >Earth. Earthbound economic refinement methods likely have to be energy >efficient and usable for bulk amounts, these requirements wouldn't be needed >for a starship where energy is supposed to be abundant. > >Timothy Oh, I was thinking of fuel minning. If you want to manufacture things from local resources, you'll need to do some ore refining. Since you'll need to do more of that for a 1-way mission, you can't save any weight by leaving that stuff off. On the other hand in a one way mission you don't need to do fuel minning and processing. So for the sake of argument I was assuming a couple thousand tons of specialized equipment just for that. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 15 11:12 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2184" "Mon" "15" "December" "1997" "14:07:16" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "71" "starship-design: Re: re: sorry about last email" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA11440 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 11:12:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.174]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA11431 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 11:12:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <96526edf.34957fe6@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2183 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Shellgrdnr@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: re: sorry about last email Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 14:07:16 EST In a message dated 12/14/97 1:42:00 PM, you wrote: >Hello again > >Sorry about last email that was partially there. I hit the wrong button. Anyhow, >My name is shellgardner. Just to tell you, I am not the actul "shell gardner". >I am her son, solarfm, I just have to use her name to get on the web. Its so she >can tell where I went. No problem. >Anyhow, I like you explorer class starship. Just a few pointers I want to make. >1. I thought that a fusion engine can make incredible amounts of energy just from >a little bit of fuel. I am questioning the 25,000 tons to actully go 30% the speed >of light. I agree it would take only 16 weeks, which is not bad, to reach that >speed. Actually its more like 25 million tons. Yes fusion can incredible amounts of energy just from a little bit of fuel, but the energy needed to shove a ship that heavy to those speeds is far FAR greater. >The other thing is that ypu wouldn't need to take extra fuel to slow down. Only >to speed up on the trip home. I was reading in a science magizine about "magsails" >whjich is a huge magnet in the rear of the ship. The Mag sail would slow down the >ship enough, and you could use in in corridenice with the solar winds. Problem is, as far as we can figure out, the magsails wouldn't produce enough drag to slow the ship down fast enough. >And you wont have to worry about food so much if you put the entire crew in a cryofreeze. >Then you would only need to store food for the time they are around the star system. Problem is no one knows how to do "cryofreeze". People talk about it a lot in science fiction films and books, but all actual attempts have killed all the test animals. Also as a practical matter someone has to keep the ship repaired. >And if the "cryobeds" had a thick jel in them, you could acelerate faster and there >would be "gravity " in the tubes so they could experince gravity. In our case we don't have enough engine power to go faster, so its not much of a problem. >These are a few things I wanted to point out. Please right back responce. I like >your work! Solarfm Ok, glad you liked it! ;) Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 15 11:14 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["14651" "Mon" "15" "December" "1997" "14:06:47" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "320" "Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA13683 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 11:14:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.172]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA13632 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 11:14:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <6dd2d9df.34957ff8@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 14650 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 14:06:47 EST In a message dated 12/13/97 1:11:53 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> From: Kelly St >> >> In a message dated 12/11/97 6:55:35 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote: >> >> >> From: Kelly St >> >> >> >> In a message dated 12/8/97 3:24:52 PM, you wrote: > >> >0ne-way: >> > flight there (10 yrs); >> > + sustained stay for the rest of the crew (natural) life >> > (with life expectancy in space of 70 yrs, age at start 30yrs, >> > and flight time 10 yrs, this phase will last 30yrs at most); >> > = 40 yrs; >> >Two-way: >> > flight there (20 yrs); >> > + sustained stay for the exploration phase (5 yrs); >> > + flight back (20 yrs); >> > = 45 yrs. >> >may actually be in favor of the one-way mission. >> >Not speaking about the fact that those who return from >> >the two-way mission will land on Earth five years >> >after their life expectancy... >> >> Only because your assuming a fairly short life expectance. With the high >> risk environment of a mission like that, that might be justifiable, >> but for planing purposes you'ld have to assume longer. >> >Why I should? >But even assuming 80 yrs (which would be stretching things a bit), >the numbers above do not change significantly >(it would be 50yrs for one-way and 45yrs for two way). Well, you have to remember Zenon, I live in the west. Our life expectancies aer a bit longer then yours. ;) Projected life expencies for well-to-do young adults who take care of themself, is over a 100 here now. Foks living over a 100 now isn't that extreamly unusual (not common, but not unknown). I'ld expect you'ld get longer life exectancies in 50 years. Out of curtosey you should make your 1-way at least theoretically capable of lasting the maximum life expectencies of the crew. >> >Hence, the two-way mission will need approximately the same >> >amount (and duration needs) of the equipment. >> >But two-way will be much more demanding from the fuel/engine >> >point of view (as Isaac correctly remarked, not simply two times >> >more, but possibly orders of magnitude more). >> >> This makes no sence. If your assuming the same total fuel ration on the >> ship for a one or two way mission. You need the same total thrust from >> the engines (but of course on the return leg you can stand dropout with >> less mission impact). So how could the demands on the engines be >> orders of magnitude more, or realisticly even twice as much? >> At most the engines firing time is twice as much, >> >Ask Isaac, he is more competent in these matters than me. I seriously doubt that. >> but thats separated by years to do check out and servicing. >> >But what about "shell life"? >Also, for check out and servicing you will need spare parts >(for engines, they may be quite huge!) and manufacturing capablity, >which you may as well spend for durable one-way mission habitat >building and maintenance instead. Shelf life. See other posts on shelf life of engines. In general they would take a beating, but aer easier to fix then a lot else, and more tolerant. >> >Hence, which would cost more - still REMAINS DEBATABLE. >> > >> >Note also that in order to not became a suicide mission, >> >the two-way mission plan must ALSO be capable to safely change it >> >into one-way at target when the return flight becomes impossible >> >for some quite probable reasons (engine failure, problems >> >with fuel mining at target, etc.). >> >> That would be desirable, but increasing the service life by more then 50% >> >Huh? >As I have calculated at the beginning, the time durability >for one-way and two-way missions is comparable, certainly >not so much different as by 50%. But I listed alternate calculations for the projected life expectancies for the crew. This would dramatically lengthen the duration of a 1-way mission to 70-80 years, compared to the 40 year (max) 2-way missions we've been talking about for a couple years. >> would probably require MAJOR scale up in the ship systems and crew, which >> would probably be untenable. Contingencies for those problems that allow >> a return would need to be factored in, or a possible rescue mission (i.e. >> diverting the next ship that could have been planed to be launched to >> another star). >> >Rescue mission? After you received the mayday signal (4yrs) >and been able to arrive with the rescue ship (+20 yrs, see above) >they will be long dead without the one-way capability! The ships designed to last the amount of time it would take to get between systems, which is the same time it would take for a rescue ship to get between. Since I was always assuming a decade or so of emergency suplies. A rescu mission is possible, and would be planed into the program. (If nothing else its a good excuse for building a secound ship that could be set somewhere else. ;) ) >> >> No, we would not go somewhere just to go to an outpost. In itself, >> >> an outpost isn't a goal or a reason for going somewhere. >> >> At best its a tool to allow you to do something there. >> >> At worst its a stunt. (Been there, done that, took >> >> our bows, and went home.) >> >> >> >Ahh, but the above applies even stronger to the two-way mission >> >(especially the "and went home" part ;-)). >> >> I don't follow that statement. It sounds like your saying if we have no >> reason to go somewhere (or go back to) then stay there perminently? >> >Huh? >Now I do not understand what you are speaking about... > >Let me recapitulate: >You said in the above that an outpost building would be only a stunt, >and the you preceeded to defina a stunt as "(Been there, done that, >took our bows, and went home.)". Now I remarked, that with that >"and went home" part your definition of "stunt" applies as well >(or even better) to a two-way mission. >Which I then summed up with the sentence: >> > >> >Hence, from this point of view one-way and two-way seem equivalent... >> > >which sentence you seemingly overlooked. > >Got it this time? Sorry. Youtr post said you wanted and outpost for us to go to, rather then a 2-way flight that wouldn't encourage return flights. I couldn't figure out how puting an outpost somewhere would encourage us to go back there. I.e. if we had some reason to go back, we would. If we didn't, we wouldn't (with or without outpost). >> >> If your assuming a maned outpost, it would be a strong incentive to >> >> cancel the first mission. I.E. to prevent being forced to eather: >> >> send a retriaval expidition to bring them back, or to take the heat >> >> for leaving them to die for some Apollo like stunt. >> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> >> >You again with that "leaving them to die" rhetoric... >> >And "leaving them to die" back on Earth is so much better? >> >> Yes, obviously, for reasons I've stated several times, including above. >> >Huh? >What is so more sweet with dying on Earth rather than somewhere else? If you go home, before you die their are things of interest not avalible in a deralict ship is another starsystem. Like home, friends, someone to take care of you, something to do and see, somewhere to go to, top grade medical equipment (the normal life spans of the crew would keep them alive into the 22nd century), some chance to bring back your experence to the home world, etc.. Ignoring personal reasons, as an agency sending the flight, your responcible for the crew. You can't just dump them in the star system like a burned out space probe. You must make every reasonable effort to keep them alive, not impare their survival more then acceptable, and not use put them in more risk, or use them more then is nessisary. Leaving foks a drift in a deralict for half a century after their mission ends doesn't cut it. >> >Or "leaving them to die" during the long and quite boring >> >return flight (of old age/sickness or in a catastrophic accident, >> >much more probable during the return flight due to engine wear)? >> >> The return flight would certainly be no more boring then being parked >> in the target system. Eaither way you still stuck in the ship with >> no where to go. But at least your going back somewhere at the end. >> >In order to be stuck on Earth, and nowhere to go? ;-) > >I understand that one may be bored to stay all his life >on just this tiny and crowded planet. >So I understand he may wish to go to the stars and explore >and then (when lazy of old age) at least observe at close ranges >other planets (and another star). >But I do not understand why going from these very interesting >circumstances back to that boring and crowded planet can >he call as so desirable "going back somewhere"? Back here you can leave the building your in, go out to the woods, take a trip. Its a big world with a lot to see, in a big star system you can go and look around in. Its not that crowded now, and is likely to be much less so in a 100 years. All of which is a lot better then being stuck in a windowless building with a could hundred others all growing old and dieing alone and abandoned. >> >Yes, before undertaking an insterstellar mission we must be >> >already a very spacefaring civilization - in fact I have repeated >> >this several times in our discussions in the past (and in the next >> >paragraph of my previous letter too, see below). >> >However, going interstellar will be the logical and ncessary >> >NEXT step to become really spacefaring, not merely in-system-faring... >> >We all agree that interstellar travel is orders of magnitude >> >harder than in-system, hence being able to launch a starship >> >will certainly signify that we are much more spacefaring >> >than before. >> >> But, within the technical limits of the designs were coming up with. There >> are no practical benifits, and some significal costs) to launching such a >> mission. So launching it can't be considered important for the survival of >> the civilization, in the sence of the quoted comment. I.E. It does not >> offer the potential to increse resorces andmaerial, or ranges, >> accessable to human civilization. >> >Posibly not from point of view of current times. >For us now a "survival of civilization" priority task >is certainly to settle our system, NOT going to the stars. >But when the system will be settled (and becoming crowded, >or some nearby star is detected to be probably going >supernova in say, a thousand years, or so...) >the start of interstellar travel will be a must too. Even in a thousand years crowding in the systems is unlikely (actually depopulation of earth due to low birth rates might be more likely), a super nova close enough to really hurt us is about impossible. On the other hand in a couple centuries systems with orders of magnitude greater capacity and cost efficencies are virtually certon. So I'm not that impressed by those reasons. Also even if those reasons due occure, the 1-way mission would still be unacceptable, and undesirable for the same reasons as I've been stating for this proposed mission. >> >> >Without opening a real big frontier in space, the humanity will >> >> >decline even faster and earlier than we may expect. >> >> >The symptoms are already quite visible. >> >> >> >> I'm not sure what your talking about as symptoms, >> >> >> >One example - a prominent member of the interstellar travel >> >discussion list so strongly opposed to even considering >> >one-way missions as a discussion option! ;-( >> >> Because they have significant increased costs political, social, and , >> economic and have no corresponding advantage. (and their is the moral >> issue involved.) >> >I know, Kelly, that you are probably totally immune to arguments >in this particular area, since despite a mountain of arguments >(and even name-calling at times ;-) you are still stubbornly repeating >the same old buzzwords. But there are many pepople that differ >with you on this issue and are eager to go to a one-way mission. >As the old Roman rule says, the willing is not harmed. >If there are people eager to go to stars that have no >need to and see no meaning in travelling back dangerously >tens of years only to be put into grave here, >there is NO moral issue in letting them go. Period. In the moral issue, the views of the crews isn't critical, the views of the publics what would send them are. In any event I specifically excluded that in the statement, which focused on costs. >> >> Personally I think interest in space will perk up when space does do. >> >> things. At the moments its effects have been quite underwelming given >> >> the levels of effort. A more productive space program, should gain >> >> more interest and approval. >> >> >> >Possibly, let us hope so. >> >But without a vision and exploration spirit in plenty, >> >there will be NO "more productive space program", >> >or even any space program. >> > >> >Agreed? >> >> Not really. Most of the growth in space systems and programs, especially >> up to the scale needed for a project like this, would have to come from >> commercial interests, not from exploration, political, or scientific >> interests. Such interests are making serious moves toward space, but have >> to dismantal governmently roadblocks and sanctions. I'm not sure if you'ld >> consider that "...a vision and exploration spirit in plenty.."? >> >Certainly, dismantling all that "governmently roadblocks and sanctions", >requires "...a vision and exploration spirit in plenty" >(we there in Poland should know...). >But of course, commercial interests are not a goal, they are a means >(many there in the U.S. might have forgotten that ;-). >The goal is civilization survival (not exactly, but near...). >But to connect this goal, one's individual "sense of life", >and the "going to space" proposed means, one certainly >needs "...a vision and exploration spirit in plenty". >Do you think a stock broker arrives some day, between >assesing ups and downs of toadys market indicators, >at the overwhelming urge to go to stars, just by himself? ;-) The goal of comercial interest is generally to increase prosperity and quality of life of those in the comercial deals. So I do think that relates to an improvement of civilization goal. Also no colony ever survived without a strong commercial profit, so it diredctly related to space and interstellar expansion. I emphasised this because it is a historical fact that gets frequently overlooked by space advocates over here, and I presume elsewhere. Also it was specifically something that your origional statement seemed to not consider. >-- Zenon Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 15 11:16 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["15983" "Mon" "15" "December" "1997" "14:06:59" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "389" "Re: starship-design: BOUNCE starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu: Admin reques" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA14337 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 11:16:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.177]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA14326 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 11:16:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <80838ddf.34957fd6@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 15982 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: BOUNCE starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu: Admin reques Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 14:06:59 EST I got a bounce message on this, so incase it never made it... In a message dated 12/13/97 1:11:59 PM, you wrote: >In a message dated 12/11/97 7:53:47 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote: > >===> >>>True I was suggesting a service life goal for a 2 way ship at 40 years, >which >>>seems a streach, but probably doable. But adding a few decades on the end >>>would significantly cut your odds. >> >>40 years? You mean we're just going to go there and immediately >>come back? Now _that_ sounds like a sad waste. > >12 years to get there, 12 years to get back here, 8 year in systems survey, >resuply, and servicing time, 8 year reserve capacity. > > >>But then again, you are also assuming twice the delta-v capability, >>which could blow up the fuel costs a thousandfold or more. > >It came out to a 400 to 1 fuel ratio. About $40 billion worth of Lithium-6 at >current market rates. > > >===> >>>Actually since you need all engines working to brake you into >>>the system, but can take as long as you like to burn you way >>>back up to speed on the way back, the return boost can afford >>>for most of the engines to fail or be dumped. >> >>Huh? It's symmetric. You can afford many of your braking engines >>to fail during "storage"--you just need to start your deceleration >>run earlier. Naturally, you will start the run early enough so >>that you have room to spare in case some engines fail during the >>braking run. > >You won't know if they've died on the shelf until you test them and fire them >up. In any even I was more worried about burn outs during operation. You >presumably have enough reserve thrust to throatle up the other engines to >compensate. But if you lose to much thrust you'll over shoot. > > >>For the return journey, OTOH, you can't just take as long as you >>like. You need to get back before your supplies run out, and >>losing most of your engines could result in extending your >>acceleration run several decades, assuming you somehow (how?) >>refuel in system. > >The accel run is only a year or two even for the fuel/sail. Loseing half you >engines isn't likely to over run your 8 year mission pad. > > >>If you're not refueling in system, then you can afford only a >>few rockets remaining for your return acceleration because of >>the greatly reduced mass relaxing thrust requirements. >> >>If you are refueling in system in a fuel/sail like starship, >>then the mass during the deceleration run and the return >>acceleration run are equivalent. Losses in rockets in either >>leg have the same effect on extending the mission time. >> >>If you are refueling in system in a pure rocket starship, then >>you can ill afford much loss in rockets because of the greatly >>_increased_ mass compared to during the deceleration run. >> >>Engine failures for the deceleration and return acceleration runs >>will both extend the mission time. > >Extending the mission time isn't a big problem. Over shooting the system by >light weeks could be. > > >>>>2. Oxygen recycling and CO2 scrubbers. At least with current >>>> technology, they have a limited expected life span, but >>>> they are relatively lightwieght so many spares can be >>>> carried. I'm not sure about their shelf life. >> >>>Scrubbers wouldn't work, but we could synthasis the ox out of water in the >>>air. (Odd bit of matabolism I found. The ox we breathing winds up in the >>>water we excreat, the ox in the CO2 comes from other sources. weird.) >> >>Not really. That's the way respiration works. >> >>>>3. Water recycling. I'm not sure about this part. >> >>>Boil it to steam and condese it out. Replace burned out reaction chambers >>>every few years(?). Foutunately stainless steel is plantifull in asteroids. >> >>Stainless steel isn't plentiful anywhere except maybe landfills. It >>has to be refined. This is something where spares will have to be >>brought, but these spares should last practically forever in >>storage. > >It is plentiful in asteroids. I.E. nickel iron asteroids. The metal ores >rich enough to use with little processing. Not the best grade, but >acceptable. > > >>>>4. Food storage. Irradiated canned food will easily last a couple >>>> hundred years. >> >>>The containers arn't likely to last for centuries! >> >>In low pressure storage hermetically sealed in inert gas? I don't >>see why not. > >Theyll corrode with the chemicals in the food. > > >===>> >>>>>>Why would the crew be wearing out? We'd be getting old after a >>>>>>while, but at that point it would be getting less and less >>>>>>important to have the equipment last much longer. >> >>>>>It has to keep working for the crew to keep living. If it >>>>>needs repair NOW, you can't just hope it woun't fail for >>>>>a decade or two for the last crewman to die. It almost >>>>>certainly will fail in months to years. >> >>>>Why would it almost certainly fail in months or years? Exactly >>>>what mission critical components are certain to fail, even with >>>>triple redundancy? (If there's only one or two crew left, >>>>the life support systems will be well below capacity.) >> >>>How many months with out service would you expect your car to keep runing >>>after the check engine light comes on? >> >>Not too long, but if I have 5 cars I can live with one of them >>breaking down. Remember, we're talking about the last one or two >>survivors living in a habitat designed for at least a dozen. >>That leaves a lot of room for redundancy. > >However a life support system built to supply hudreds might have serious >troubles running only for two or three. > > >>>Why do you think ship and subs keep >>>such large maintenece crews, and airplaces often need days of support crew >>>time for every hour they fly. This stuff takes a beating. And if any of >the >>>parts cut out, the system starts to fail. >> >>Yes, that stuff takes a beating. They're combat machines that have >>to directly compete with their own kind. This starship isn't some >>combat machine, and it's going to take things nice and slow. > >At .4c? We obviousl have different ideas of slow. ;) > > >===>> > > >>>>>Your sending people out to to a decade or two of work (at most until the >>>>>exploration gear become unservicable) and then sit in the deralic ship >until >>>>>they die. >> >>>>Why would the exploration gear become unservicable so quickly? >>>>At the very least, we can expect handheld optical telescopes >>>>to last hundreds of years. Even that alone, at such a close >>>>range, is enough to do serious scientific observations impossible >>>>from the Solar System. (Even if we figured out a way to make >>>>astronomically huge optical telescopes able to equal their >>>>resolution, we could not make fine corona observations since >>>>we'd lack the ability to shade out the photosphere.) >> >>>Actually telescopes arn't worth sending, you can see the systems perfectly >>>well from here with a big enough scope. FAR easier to build a scope here >with >>>a synthetic apiture a few light secounds across, rather then keep a 1 meter >>>scope working a few light years from home. >> >>You won't be able to easily shade the photosphere. > >We have as far back as skylab, can't see why we would forget by 2050. > >>>Yes you can shade out the photosphere from here, especially from space. >> >>With your "synthetic aperture" telescope, you'd need a shade at least >>the size of your synthetic aperture and it would have to be placed >>in interstellar space between the target star and your telescope >>system (it has to appear the same size as the target star). > >Or a separte small shade in each scope. > > >>>Or, you could use electronic imaging systems that can see the corona >>>without blocking the photosphere. >> >>Doesn't work with LBI. > >Why? > >>>No observation studies (assuming you can keep the scopes working without >>>needing to strip their aiming and stabalization systems, or cooling, or the >>>rest), arn't going to cut it. You have to get direct data from drop probes >or >>>samples, preferable bringing some samples home where the better lab gear is. >> >>Samples? Samples of what? Sure, there _might_ be planetoids around >>Alpha Centauri. But those can be visited directly with the ship, >>if need be. Big planets with significant gravitational fields would >>present a problem, but there's no reason for us to currently expect >>any such things orbiting there. Binary star systems don't make for >>too many stable orbits. > >Binaries can have stable orbits, thou they have to be much greater, or smaller >then the distence between the stars. (3 star in the Centauri system as I >remember.) > >Besides if theirs isn't any planets to speak of, theirs no reason to go. You >can study the star nearly as well from here, and the difference isn't worth >sending a ship for. > > >>>>>Thats effectivly a suicide mission. I know a few folks in this group >>>>>disagree, or don't care, but it still would meen no government on earth >>>could >>>>>get permision for such a mission. I.E. your throwing away a crew for no >>>>>critical reason. Specifically your doing it to save money, which is >really >>>>>not going to sell. >> >>>>By your logic, life is a suicide mission. No matter what, you're >>>>going to die somewhere. >> >>>>Honestly, if I and others like me were sent on a _2_ way mission, We'd >>>>be more than halfway tempted to disobey orders and simply stay. >> >>>>That aside, the crew isn't thrown away. They're simply taking the >>>>"retirement plan" of their choice. >> >>>How many ships crew, deside to beach their ship and hope they die before it >>>does? >> >>How is this question relevant? No oceangoing ship ever built is even >>remotely like the starships we're discussing. > >Because that your senerop. Go to the system. Do you mission for a few years >until the gear burns out. Then hole up in the deralict ship for the rest of >your life. > > >>>Or how many arctic explorers would agree to go knowing they'ld live out >>>their days in those cramped tents or shacks in the ice. Nothing to do but >try >>>to stay alive a few days longer. >> >>The arctic is frankly a pretty boring place. Alpha Centauri is pretty >>exciting place. > >How? You don't even expect their to be any planets or much asteroids to look >at? the Arctic would be comparativly busy and comfortable. > >>>>Anyway, doing something to save money has long been a strong selling >>>>point. That's why Mars pathfinder is this tiny little cart which >>>>can't even send data up to orbit rather than the originally >>>>envisionned self-sufficient rovers bristling with sensors. It's >>>>why Magellan has only the rather limited radar rather than radar, >>>>IR, and optical, and it's why they trashed it into Venus's >>>>atmosphere when it could have continued operating it for years. >> >>>People don't mind you using expendable equipment and abandoning it when your >>>done, but they get very upset when you do the same to personel. >> >>These people aren't being abandonned. > >They are sent to do a mission, then left their to die when the mission is >finished. That sounds like abandonment by my dictionary. > > >===>>> >>>Also you might note my Explorer system has over a .3 c cruse speed, and the >>>fuel sail has over a .4c cruse speed. .1 or .2c speeds would require flight >>>times of 20-50 years each way. Totally unfeasable. >> >>A 20 year 1-way trip is what we're discussing. The tacit assumption >>is that a faster cruise speed is unavailable. Assuming a straight >>fusion rocket like a highly refined MagOrion, a delta-v limit of >>..4c (which implies a cruise speed of .1c) is rather reasonable. >>This assumes the fusion rocket comes within an order of magnitude >>of the theoretical maximum. > >Whos we? I never heard you mentioned this assumption, or specify such a ship, >and I've repeatedly refured to the fuel ratios and speed capacities of the >fuel sail. > > >>Honestly, I'd be half tempted to go on a .1c 1-way trip (40 years). >>I picked .2c since it was fast enough so that I would _jump_ at >>the opportunity to go. > >Given the slow speed, you'ld push the service life of systems, which would >demand a bigger heavier ship to allow the added service life. It would be >cheaper to just up your fuel mass ratio, and get their quicker. Also with a >40 year flight virtually all your crew would be in their 70's and 80's, and be >40 years out of practice and behind the times. > > >>>>>Past >>>>>that your need to strip those systems for pars to regulate life support, >>>>>medical, etc.. >> >>>>Huh? Keeping the systems alive will be a matter of repairing them >>>>with spares. There's not much commonality between a CO2 scrubber >>>>and an IR camera. >> >>>The IR cameras cryo cooler, aiming motors, and electronics could be used in >>>everything from food processors to refrigeration systems, the images might >be >>>needed for medical, etc.. >> >>It's theoretically possible to share those components, but entirely >>impractical once you look at the differences between the systems. >>A cryogenic cooler designed to cool a small space to 5 degrees K >>isn't going to be much like a refrigerator designed to cool a large >>space to 5 degrees Fahrenheit. The micrometer stepping motors for >>slowly slewing a camera with minimum vibration are radically >>different from a brushless DC motor designed to run an air pump. >>About the only common electronics components would be assorted >>resistors, capacitors, and microcontrollers, but you're going to >>have thousands of these in storage. The camera itself is designed >>for focus at infinity, which is very different from anything you'd >>want for medical imaging... > >The lens would be different, the imagining chipcould be the same. In general >to keep the spare parts count don't everything would be designedto use the >same standard parts. Cryo coolers for long term storage to low thermal >imaging. Motors for..etc.. > >>>>Most of the time spent on a manned spaceship, at least currently, is >>>>keeping yourself alive. That's a given. But really that's not so >>>>different from life here on Earth (especially if you're a farmer). >> >>>Very little of the time spent in current life is related to survival. >>>Probably less then 1/5-1/20th (depending on how you figure it). >> >>Most people work at least 40 hours a week, and spend maybe 8 hours >>a week just eating. Not counting 8 hours a day for sleeping (which, >>if anything, counts towards time used up surviving), that's 43% of >>the time. > >And if you assume you grocery bill is $80 per week, Rent and utilities $150 >per week. $15- $20 and hour pre tax/benifits ave salery. You work about 12 - >15 hours a week for survival. > >>If you're a farmer, then you probably spend a lot more time working. >> >>>The scientists on the crew would be there to do science and >>>support personel would keep the ship runing. >> >>At least for the cruise leg, everyone on board would be there to >>keep the ship running, but it should be easy going early on. At >>the target system, everyone on board should be there to "do >>science". Even someone completely unfamiliar with astronomy >>at the beginning of the mission could learn as much about >>astronomy as any PhD in 20 years. > >The ship will need about as much servicing on the cruse as anywhere, the >mission systems (shuttles, probes, minning systems, etc..) will need a lot >more. So the support crew to do all that would need to grosely outweigh the >scientists or landing survey crews. The latter would need to be separte folks >or they would never have any time to do research work. > >>>But as the ship deteriorated it would require >>>exponential growth in sevicing, and the science gear, crew, and >>>systems would be droped, or canabalized to service the rest. >> >>As I stated before, the ship would be maintained with replacement >>parts, rather than canabalizing components. >>-- >> _____ Isaac Kuo > >Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 15 11:18 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2977" "Mon" "15" "December" "1997" "14:07:07" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "70" "Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA15022 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 11:18:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.169]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA14994 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 11:18:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <79bb3ae0.34957fde@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2976 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 14:07:07 EST In a message dated 12/14/97 10:24:53 PM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: > >>>Before making the discussion unnecessary long: What kind of repairs do you >>>consider to be mayor and to be necessary in 60 years but not within 30? >> >>More structural repair due to fatigue and corosion. Power cables and >>distrabution systems, reaction vessels for life support reactions (distilation >>of water, air processing and synthasis, etc), plumbing, ductwork, pumps, >>bearings for the hab centrafuge, etc. Also electronics get increasingly >>erratic at those ages. > >But is designing for a doubling of lifetime impossible in the next few decades? >In what way can current Eartly goods be compared to the equipment we need. >Are there any goods of which lifetime doesn't depend on costeffectiveness? >(Ie. Are there manufacturers for whom it pays to design a 3 times more >expensive product but with a 2 times longer lifetime?) Impossible? In some cases yes, in others no. Certainly many things could be designed more resilantly, but the military has pushed that pretty hard already in a lot of areas. Other systems age because of effects we don't know how to correct, and have been trying to compensate for. All in all, I'ld expect we could improve a lot of stuff, and have assumed that for the 40 year life expectence assuption. Geting even that far is iffy, beyond seems really unlikely. >>Food also becomes an issue. > >For some reason 40 years of freezedried food doesn't soon very appealing. I >guess that potato chips may be a useful food source after all. ;) Frozen foods, not freeze dried (except for emergency reserves). I'm not crazy! ;) >>Paradoxicly the engines to boost back are fairly safe. They don't need >>complex micro systems, and being unpowered arn't under load or much thermal >>stress. Due to the large scale these engines and reactors must be. Minor >>corosion on metal to metal contact points isn't critical. To be stable the >>engines would have to stick to simple stable alloys (copper vers super >>conductors etc.), which would also increase stability. > >While an engine may be more robust than "micro systems", it also has to cope >with orders of magnitude more stresses. Won't these stresses speed up metal >fatigue beyond proportion? To a degree, but the drive is only run a few months, rather then decades, and has to be rated for full operation for those months under any condition. So it would need a lot of reserve toughness built in. >>So a 2 way flight puts most stress on the drive systems, which generally have >>only been used for a few months, but least on the general suport systems for >>the ship which have alread been in use for deacades. > >It does however need to gather bulk amounts of fuel in the target system. >(Assuming you don't need other infrastructure like beaming stations.) True you need minning and processing equip. Hence my selection of a plentifull, easy to mine fuel. ;) >Timothy Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 15 13:50 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["769" "Mon" "15" "December" "1997" "15:45:21" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "24" "RE: starship-design: Re: re: sorry about last email" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA02783 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 13:50:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA02761 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 13:50:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p19.gnt.com [204.49.68.224]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA12462; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 15:50:20 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 15:50:15 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD0971.23018AE0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 768 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Kelly St'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: re: sorry about last email Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 15:45:21 -0600 On Monday, December 15, 1997 1:07 PM, Kelly St [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] wrote: > Problem is no one knows how to do "cryofreeze". People talk about it a > lot in > science fiction films and books, but all actual attempts have killed all > the > test animals. Also as a practical matter someone has to keep the ship > repaired. > Hey, I thought someone did this with frogs or something a few years ago? Not my area, anyone remember? Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- PLEASE NOTE: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That When the Consumer Is Not Directly Observing This Product, It May Cease to Exist or Will Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 15 20:14 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4139" "Mon" "15" "December" "1997" "20:14:32" "-0800" "RD Designs" "rddesign@wolfenet.com" nil "121" "" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA01196 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 20:14:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from wolfenet.com (ratty.wolfe.net [204.157.98.9]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA01183 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 20:14:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from rddesign.wolfenet.com (sea-ts3-p56.wolfenet.com [204.157.98.238]) by wolfenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA30115 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 20:14:32 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199712160414.UAA30115@wolfenet.com> X-Sender: rddesign@popserv.wolfenet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rddesign@wolfenet.com (RD Designs) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 4138 From: rddesign@wolfenet.com (RD Designs) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 20:14:32 -0800 (PST) The X(mas) Files Mulder: We're too late. It's already been here. Scully: Mulder, I hope you know what you are doing. Mulder: Look, Scully, just like the other homes: Douglas fir, truncated, mounted, transformed into some sort of shrine; halls decked with boughs of holly; stockings hung by the chimney, with care. Scully: You really think someone's been here? Mulder: Someone or some THING. Scully: Mulder, over here -- it's fruitcake. Mulder: Don't touch it! Those things can be lethal. Scully: It's O.K. There's a note attached: "Gonna find out who's naughty and nice." Mulder: It's judging them, Scully. It's making a list. Scully: Who? What are you talking about? Mulder: Ancient mythology tells of an obese humanoid entity who could travel at great speed in a craft powered by antlered servants. Once each year, near the winter solstice, this creature is said to descend from the heavens to reward its followers and punish its disbelievers with jagged chunks of anthracite. Scully: But that's legend, Mulder -- a story told by parents to frighten children. Surely, you don't believe it? Mulder: Something was here tonite, Scully. Check out the bite marks on this gingerbread man. Whatever tore through this plate of cookies was massive -- and in a hurry. Scully: It left crumbs everywhere. And look, Mulder, this milk glass has been completely drained. Mulder: It gorged itself, Scully. It fed without remorse. Scully: But why would they leave it milk and cookies? Mulder: Appeasement. Tonight is the Eve, and nothing can stop its wilding. Scully: But if this thing does exist, how did it get in? The doors and windows were locked. There's no sign of forced entry. Mulder: Unless I miss my guess, it came through the fireplace. Scully: Wait a minute, Mulder. If you are saying some huge creature landed on the roof and came down the chimney, you're crazy. The flue is barely six inches wide. Nothing could get through there. Mulder: But what if it could alter its shape, move in all directions. Scully: You mean, like a bowl full of jelly? Mulder: Exactly. Scully, I've never told anyone this, but when I was a child my home was visited. I saw the creature. It had long white strips of fur surrounding its ruddy, misshapen head. Its bloated torso was red and white. I'll never forget the horror. I turned away, and when I looked back it had somehow taken on the facial features of my father. Scully: Impossible. Mulder: I know what I saw. And that night it read my mind. It brought me a Mr. Potato Head, Scully. IT KNEW I WANTED A MR. POTATO HEAD! Scully: I'm sorry, Mulder, but you're asking me to disregard the laws of physics. You want me to believe in some supernatural being who soars across the skies and brings gifts to good little girls and boys. Listen to what you are saying. Do you understand the repercussions? If this gets out, they'll close the X-files. Mulder: Scully, listen to me: It knows when you are sleeping. It knows when you're awake. Scully: But we have no proof. Mulder: Last year, on this exact date, S.E.T.I. radio telescopes detected bogeys in the airspace over twenty-seven states. The White House ordered a Condition Red. Scully: But that was a meteor shower. Mulder: Officially. Two days ago, eight prized Scandinavian reindeer vanished from the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. Nobody - not even the zookeeper - was told about it. The government doesn't want people to know about Project Kringle. They fear that if this thing is proved to exist, then the public would stop spending half its annual income in a holiday shopping frenzy. Retail markets will collapse. Scully,they cannot let the world believe this creature lives. There's too much at stake. They'll do whatever it takes to insure another silent night. Scully: Mulder, I -- Mulder: Sh-h-h! Do you hear what I hear? Scully: On the roof. It sounds like . . . a clatter. Mulder: The truth is up there. Let's see what's the matter. Visit RD Designs Home Page at: http://www.wolfenet.com/~rddesign/Rddesign.htm thank you From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 17 09:05 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["495" "Wed" "17" "December" "1997" "18:03:51" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "16" "Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA24582 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:05:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA24571 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:05:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-013.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xiMv8-001XeIC; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 18:06:06 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 494 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 18:03:51 +0100 Zenon wrote: >In a two-way mission the crew may also die prematurely, >which does not make a two-way mission "not pure suicide". >In this respect, I see no difference between one-way >and two-way missions. OK, so apparently certain increased chances of premature death are accepted by the public. Now all that we need to figure out is what mission has the highest risk. We all know each others visions (at least from those that have written lately). I'd wish we'd a bit hard data. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 17 09:05 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1561" "Wed" "17" "December" "1997" "18:03:53" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "33" "starship-design: Does a one-way mission need mining?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA24810 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:05:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA24794 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:05:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-013.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xiMvA-001YkiC; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 18:06:08 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1560 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Does a one-way mission need mining? Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 18:03:53 +0100 Kelly wrote: >>I wasn't thinking of so much of mining. It would probably be more useful to >>store some amount of refined materials onboard. With smaller equipment these >>materials and broken (but still rather pure) parts could be made into >>whatever new parts are needed. >>(Maybe some of these refined materials could be used in the shielding) >>Furthermore we wouldn't need to use the same refinement methods used here on >>Earth. Earthbound economic refinement methods likely have to be energy >>efficient and usable for bulk amounts, these requirements wouldn't be needed >>for a starship where energy is supposed to be abundant. > >Oh, I was thinking of fuel minning. If you want to manufacture things from >local resources, you'll need to do some ore refining. Since you'll need to do >more of that for a 1-way mission, you can't save any weight by leaving that >stuff off. ?? At most we'd need to rebuild the starship. That still is a lot less material than the fuel. Actually we'd need much less than the whole starship. Likely most mass of the ship (engine structure, shield, hull, wall) does not need to be rebuild. That fraction of the mass left could be stored in a refined but raw form onboard the ship. So not much mining would be necessary. (BTW the heavy parts likely are metal, I believe metals can be quite easely recycled.) >On the other hand in a one way mission you don't need to do fuel >minning and processing. So for the sake of argument I was assuming a couple >thousand tons of specialized equipment just for that. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 17 09:06 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1583" "Wed" "17" "December" "1997" "18:03:56" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "37" "Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA25017 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:06:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA25003 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:06:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-013.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xiMvC-001YsaC; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 18:06:10 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1582 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 18:03:56 +0100 Kelly wrote: >>But is designing for a doubling of lifetime impossible in the next few >>decades? >>In what way can current Eartly goods be compared to the equipment we need. >>Are there any goods of which lifetime doesn't depend on costeffectiveness? >>(Ie. Are there manufacturers for whom it pays to design a 3 times more >>expensive product but with a 2 times longer lifetime?) > >Impossible? In some cases yes, in others no. Certainly many things could be >designed more resilantly, but the military has pushed that pretty hard already >in a lot of areas. What areas and why would they do that? What if a 2 times longer life means a 3 times higher price? From an economical view, the latter would likely make little sense, so I wonder if the military did research in that direction. >All in all, I'ld expect we could improve a lot of stuff, and have assumed that >for the 40 year life expectence assuption. Geting even that far is iffy, >beyond seems really unlikely. >>While an engine may be more robust than "micro systems", it also has to cope >>with orders of magnitude more stresses. Won't these stresses speed up metal >>fatigue beyond proportion? > >To a degree, but the drive is only run a few months, rather then decades, and >has to be rated for full operation for those months under any condition. So >it would need a lot of reserve toughness built in. Reserve toughness? So one can build in more than enough reserve (double?) toughness for engines, but not for micro objects that have much less stress... This argument doesn't fully convince me. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 17 09:09 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1340" "Wed" "17" "December" "1997" "18:07:59" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "29" "RE: starship-design: Re: re: sorry about last email" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA25848 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:08:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA25816 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:08:53 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id SAA00848; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 18:07:59 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199712171707.SAA00848@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1339 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, lparker@cacaphony.net Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: re: sorry about last email Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 18:07:59 +0100 (MET) > From: "L. Parker" > > On Monday, December 15, 1997 1:07 PM, Kelly St [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] > wrote: > > Problem is no one knows how to do "cryofreeze". People talk about it > > a lot in science fiction films and books, but all actual attempts have > > killed all the test animals. Also as a practical matter someone has > > to keep the ship repaired. > > > Hey, I thought someone did this with frogs or something a few years ago? > Not my area, anyone remember? > I do not know about such (successful) experiments conducted by people. But certain frogs make it routinely all by themselves - becoming frozen for the winter and waking healthy in the spring (sometimes even after several years). They have physiological adaptation for that - among others, special substances in body cells preventing crystalization of ice (which would lead to disruption of cell structure). So, in theory it is not impossible. If, and how, it is possible to make artificially with organisms (like humans) which do not have such natural adaptations is still an open question, though. It requires, I am afraid, much deeper knowledge in molecular biology and great advances in biotechnology. I personally believe it will be possible with advanced nanotechnology (some 50+ yrs, to toss a careless prediction ;-). -- Zenon From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 17 09:59 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["957" "Wed" "17" "December" "1997" "18:58:29" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "21" "RE: starship-design: sorry about last email" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA17870 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:59:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA17841 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:59:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-024.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xiNlz-001YwbC; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 19:00:43 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 956 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: sorry about last email Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 18:58:29 +0100 >> Hey, I thought someone did this with frogs or something a few years ago? >> Not my area, anyone remember? > >I do not know about such (successful) experiments conducted by people. >But certain frogs make it routinely all by themselves - >becoming frozen for the winter and waking healthy in the spring >(sometimes even after several years). They have physiological >adaptation for that - among others, special substances >in body cells preventing crystalization of ice (which would lead >to disruption of cell structure). So, in theory it is not impossible. A few weeks ago I saw a TV program about life in the Arctic. It told about fish living there in water several degrees below zero. If I remember correctly these fish had proteins that prevented ice crystals from becoming too large to be destructive (small crystals did form though). The fish were still able to swim, but like most Arctic underwater organisms try to save energy. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 17 11:51 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1366" "Wed" "17" "December" "1997" "14:42:37" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "40" "Re: Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA06768 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 11:51:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.170]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA06744 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 11:51:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <26d70507.34982b30@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1365 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 14:42:37 EST In a message dated 12/17/97 11:33:31 AM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >>In a two-way mission the crew may also die prematurely, >>which does not make a two-way mission "not pure suicide". >>In this respect, I see no difference between one-way >>and two-way missions. > >OK, so apparently certain increased chances of premature death are accepted >by the public. >Now all that we need to figure out is what mission has the highest risk. We >all know each others visions (at least from those that have written lately). >I'd wish we'd a bit hard data. > >Timothy Two rules of thumb come to mind. 1) People will accept higher risk from thinks they are in control of, then things others control. I.e. passengers worry more about the safety of airliners then cars. Thou they are safer in the airliner, they are not in control. 2) In a system, to increse relyability: - Lower the stress and increase the tolerances (to wear or damage) of all parts. - The fewer things to break, the less likelyhood of failure. - The less time you use a system (past the initial break in period) the less likelyhood of problems. So a simpler system with the least demands for precision and stress factors, will last longer with less problems or repairs. If you use such a system for a shorter period of time, its far less likely to fail. Does any of this help? Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 17 12:03 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2987" "Wed" "17" "December" "1997" "14:42:34" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "70" "Re: Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA12497 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 12:03:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.167]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA12458 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 12:03:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2986 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 14:42:34 EST In a message dated 12/17/97 11:11:45 AM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >Kelly wrote: > >>>But is designing for a doubling of lifetime impossible in the next few >>>decades? >>>In what way can current Eartly goods be compared to the equipment we need. >>>Are there any goods of which lifetime doesn't depend on costeffectiveness? >>>(Ie. Are there manufacturers for whom it pays to design a 3 times more >>>expensive product but with a 2 times longer lifetime?) >> >>Impossible? In some cases yes, in others no. Certainly many things could be >>designed more resilantly, but the military has pushed that pretty hard already >>in a lot of areas. > >What areas and why would they do that? What if a 2 times longer life means a >3 times higher price? From an economical view, the latter would likely make >little sense, so I wonder if the military did research in that direction. The Mercedes Benz economics. Military systems do get that kind of treatment since they HAVE to work, and will be used in the worst situations. NASA and space systems get that treatment sometimes too. But to a degree it is always assumed you can fix things in a decade or four, and you usually throw things away, even if working fine, after a half century or so. Some things are easy to make more long lived. Heavier structures, thicker tubing, better filtration on working fluids, etc will obvioiusly compensate for a lot of things, if you can afford the weight. Circutry, and IC chips are a bigger problem, especially if you don't want to dramatically decrease their abilities. Etc.. >>All in all, I'ld expect we could improve a lot of stuff, and have assumed that >>for the 40 year life expectence assuption. Geting even that far is iffy, >>beyond seems really unlikely. > > >>>While an engine may be more robust than "micro systems", it also has to cope >>>with orders of magnitude more stresses. Won't these stresses speed up metal >>>fatigue beyond proportion? >> >>To a degree, but the drive is only run a few months, rather then decades, and >>has to be rated for full operation for those months under any condition. So >>it would need a lot of reserve toughness built in. > >Reserve toughness? So one can build in more than enough reserve (double?) >toughness for engines, but not for micro objects that have much less stress... >This argument doesn't fully convince me. The engines stress would be simple structural and thermal loads. So you can compensate with tougher structures. Because of their scale the kind of corosion or microdamage that would criple a micro object, would be phisically to small to effect the performance of a macro object. Think of a pit of corrosion the size of a pencil point on the surface of a sheet of metal as think as table top. Now think if the same corrosion on the srface of a IC chip, or a junction of an printed circut board. The very scale of the systems make one vulnerable, the other indifferent, to the same damage. >Timothy Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 17 13:00 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["674" "Wed" "17" "December" "1997" "13:00:22" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "13" "starship-design: administrivia" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA07140 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 13:00:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA07130; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 13:00:22 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199712172100.NAA07130@darkwing.uoregon.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: VM 6.35 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 673 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: administrivia Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 13:00:22 -0800 (PST) >From Sunday, December 21 to Tuesday, December 23 we will be upgrading darkwing.uoregon.edu (also known as lists.uoregon.edu) to Solaris 2.6. During that time mail service may be intermittent, and postings to starship-design may be delayed (although there should be minimal risk of losing list mail). While it is the holiday season, please keep any holiday greetings you send to the list short and personalized. Please don't forward holiday-related material from other mailing lists or that you received personally, no matter how amusing you might find it to be. (If I see even one more copy of the giant "Twelve Days of Christmas" ASCII graphic, I'm going to scream.) From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Dec 18 10:38 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2516" "Thu" "18" "December" "1997" "13:18:35" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "54" "Re: starship-design: Does a one-way mission need mining?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA10734 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:38:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.169]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA10683; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:38:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <79c2b971.349968fd@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2515 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl, owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Does a one-way mission need mining? Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 13:18:35 EST In a message dated 12/17/97 12:02:04 PM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >Kelly wrote: > >>>I wasn't thinking of so much of mining. It would probably be more useful to >>>store some amount of refined materials onboard. With smaller equipment these >>>materials and broken (but still rather pure) parts could be made into >>>whatever new parts are needed. >>>(Maybe some of these refined materials could be used in the shielding) >>>Furthermore we wouldn't need to use the same refinement methods used here on >>>Earth. Earthbound economic refinement methods likely have to be energy >>>efficient and usable for bulk amounts, these requirements wouldn't be needed >>>for a starship where energy is supposed to be abundant. >> >>Oh, I was thinking of fuel minning. If you want to manufacture things from >>local resources, you'll need to do some ore refining. Since you'll need to do >>more of that for a 1-way mission, you can't save any weight by leaving that >>stuff off. > >?? At most we'd need to rebuild the starship. That still is a lot less >material than the fuel. Actually we'd need much less than the whole >starship. Likely most mass of the ship (engine structure, shield, hull, >wall) does not need to be rebuild. That fraction of the mass left could be >stored in a refined but raw form onboard the ship. So not much mining would >be necessary. >(BTW the heavy parts likely are metal, I believe metals can be quite easely >recycled.) The mass to be processed would be greatest for the fuel, but I was refuring to the mass of equipment you'ld need to bring along for a 2-way vs 1-way mission. A 2-way mission requires fuel minnig and processing equipment. It and a 1-way mission also require ship repair systems, and the spare parts, materials, and mining and refining equipment for that (i.e. unrelated to fuel processing). The secound catagory of equipment and suplies would need to be greater for a 1-way mission given its much greater length. However the 2-way mission requires far more fuel mining and processing equipment. A 1-way probably could save some weight by procesing simple ores (space has extreamly high grade ores floating around in it), and manufacturing somethings from that rather then stored raw materials, but in most cases that wouldn't be critical. >>On the other hand in a one way mission you don't need to do fuel >>minning and processing. So for the sake of argument I was assuming a couple >>thousand tons of specialized equipment just for that. > >Timothy Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Dec 19 08:58 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7105" "Fri" "19" "December" "1997" "10:24:22" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "158" "starship-design: FW: SSRT: X-33 space plane to call Edwards home (fwd)" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA08478 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 19 Dec 1997 08:57:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA08465 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 1997 08:57:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p31.gnt.com [204.49.68.236]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA08500 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 1997 10:57:50 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 19 Dec 1997 10:57:43 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD0C6C.EEB9D7C0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 7104 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: FW: SSRT: X-33 space plane to call Edwards home (fwd) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 10:24:22 -0600 -----Original Message----- From: Chris W. Johnson [SMTP:chrisj@mail.utexas.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 1997 6:36 PM To: Single Stage Rocket Technology News Subject: SSRT: X-33 space plane to call Edwards home (fwd) From: Andrew Yee Newsgroups: sci.space.news Subject: X-33 space plane to call Edwards home (Forwarded) Followup-To: sci.space.policy Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 11:11:50 -0500 Organization: UTCC Campus Access Lines: 138 [Extracted from Air Force News] Released: Dec 11, 1997 X-33 space plane to call Edwards home By 1st Lt. Chris Hemrick, Air Force Flight Test Center Public Affairs EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFNS) -- Imagine a future where there is a space plane that lifts off from Edwards Air Force Base and flies to Malmstrom AFB, Mont. -- a trip of 950 miles -- in approximately 20 minutes. Now imagine that future is within two years. Edwards AFB organizations are teamed up with Lockheed Martin Skunk Works to develop and test the X-33, which is a 53 percent scale model of the future Reusable Launch Vehicle, called VentureStar. Through flight and ground demonstrations, the X-33 will provide information necessary to allow the Lockheed Martin Corporation to make a decision on whether to proceed in the development of the full-scale, commercial single stage to orbit RLV. If created, the VentureStar would eventually replace the space shuttle as the next generation space transportation system. "The goal is to lower costs from approximately $10,000 per pound down to around $1,000 per pound to get into orbit," said Chuck Rogers, Air Force Flight Test Center X-33 launch integration engineer/manager, 412th Test Wing 'Access to Space' Office. Members of Team Edwards who are assisting the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works and the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (the program head) with this program include the AFFTC, the Air Force Research Laboratory Propulsion Directorate (AFRL/PR) and the NASA-Dryden Flight Research Center. "It's a real paradigm shift that the industry pays the government for products, services and facilities, as a subcontractor to the contractor," said Rogers. "We actually prepared proposals and made proposal presentations, in competition with White Sands, N.M. and the Kennedy Space Center, Fla., to be the X-33 launch site, like a contractor competing for a contract. "Edwards was selected to be the X-33 launch site because of the excellent launch corridor available for launches toward the northeast, and our extensive flight test infrastructure and experience, which makes this an ideal place to test experimental vehicles," said Rogers. "Between Edwards and Utah, and Edwards and Montana are some of the most sparsely populated areas in the United States. That's very advantageous for launching a vehicle like this, since we want the program to be as safe as possible. "We now have task agreements where we are actually a subcontractor to the contractor through our launch site and flight planning task agreements." The X-33 will blast off from the site near Haystack Butte, located at the eastern edge of Edwards. A 15-flight program is planned for the X-33 from the launch site now under construction. The X-33 Team has already defined the first seven flights that will, if successful, provide the data needed to provide the confidence for a decision to proceed with the full scale VentureStar. Construction has already begun on the X-33 and major components are already taking shape. The large tank that will contain the liquid oxygen has been completed and will be delivered soon. The final assembly jigs are already in place at the LMSW facility at Palmdale. The X-33 is an unmanned, autonomous vehicle that uses differential Global Positioning System with a radar altimeter for navigation and landing. "The differential GPS will guide it through its flight and down the runway for landing," said Rogers. "Some commands can be sent up to the X-33 from the ground, but the X-33 will operate as an autonomous vehicle during normal operations. The uplink to the X-33 would only be used if the vehicle deviates significantly from its planned flight path." The X-33 preflight and flight operations will be monitored and controlled from a refurbished operations control center located in Haystack Butte. There will also be range safety officers at the downrange sites, according to Rogers. The X-33 is designed to travel at a top speed of Mach 15 (15 times the speed of sound), which is approximately three miles a second. The prototype will not achieve orbit, which would require a speed of more than Mach 25. Once the X-33 is readied for flight, the engines will be fired two times on the launch pad, with the second firing having a duration of 20 seconds. The longest flight will be approximately 20 minutes at an altitude of about 55 miles. The plan is to demonstrate a 2-day turnaround for the vehicle, said Rogers. On Nov. 14, ground was broken for the launch site near Haystack Butte. Maj. Gen. Richard L. Engel, Edwards AFB commander, predicted that the X-33 would be a world-class vehicle that researchers will use to learn incredibly important lessons. If the venture is a success, a permanent launch facility could be built in the Edwards area. From here, vehicles could be launched in nearly any direction except south, with some launches going to equatorial orbits and some to polar orbits, returning to the central site (Edwards) to be launched again. This would allow a fleet of RLVs to be based at one site, according to Rogers. The X-33 is expected to affirm new technology, such as the linear aerospike engine, a large composite liquid hydrogen tank and the spacecraft's lifting body design. The engines compensate for altitude and are believed to be more efficient and a better fit for the wedged-shaped aircraft than conventional bell nozzle rocket engines, according to NASA officials. Landing sites include Michael Army Air Field at Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, and Malmstrom AFB near Great Falls, Montana. One of NASA's 747s will be used to carry the X-33 from its landing destinations back to Edwards, said Rogers. The projected date for the X-33 rollout is May, 1999, with its first flight planned for that July. The program is scheduled to be completed by the year 2000. Once the X-33 demonstrates the technology, the contractor will look for private investors for the RLV, said Rogers. "If the X-33 program proves successful, there's going to be a competition for the RLV launch site. The Edwards area will definitely be a competitor," said Rogers. "The selection of Edwards for the X-33 launch site is a win-win for both the program and Edwards, as well as the Antelope Valley," said Johnny Armstrong, acting chief of the AFFTC Access to Space Office. "AFFTC participation in the X-33 program provides the opportunity for our personnel to hone their skills toward support of space-related programs that could provide valuable payoffs in the future, as the Air Force transitions into a Space and Air Force. --- Andrew Yee ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Dec 19 08:58 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2480" "Fri" "19" "December" "1997" "10:43:22" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "51" "RE: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA08546 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 19 Dec 1997 08:58:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA08530 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 1997 08:58:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p31.gnt.com [204.49.68.236]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA08517; Fri, 19 Dec 1997 10:58:04 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 19 Dec 1997 10:58:02 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD0C6C.FA056220.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2479 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Timothy van der Linden'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 10:43:22 -0600 On Wednesday, December 17, 1997 11:04 AM, Timothy van der Linden [SMTP:TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl] wrote: > What areas and why would they do that? What if a 2 times longer life means > a > 3 times higher price? From an economical view, the latter would likely > make > little sense, so I wonder if the military did research in that direction. All flight and nuclear rated systems and some ground and naval combat hardware, all propulsion and computational hardware, and even some common handtools have strict reliability and lifecycle criteria in military procurements. These criteria are typically at the leading edge of what is available. As a quick comparison, try jet engines - some commercial airlines fly cargo aircraft that are basically similar to some military cargo aircraft, they even use nominally the same engines. However, the military's version of the engine is rated for more hours between maintenance and a generally longer total life cycle. This isn't even combat hardware, so that excuse doesn't apply. Because of these requirements military hardware generally costs more (sometimes a lot more) than similar civilian hardware. > > >To a degree, but the drive is only run a few months, rather then decades, > >and > >has to be rated for full operation for those months under any condition. > > So > >it would need a lot of reserve toughness built in. > > Reserve toughness? So one can build in more than enough reserve (double?) > toughness for engines, but not for micro objects that have much less > stress... > This argument doesn't fully convince me. > Sure you can, and we probably will, but oh the cost...but what I think Kelly is trying to say is that some systems are not as easy to replace or carry spares for as others. For instance, if you get a break in a fiber optic control run, you take some out of spares and replace it. The same fiber optic can be used to repair any fiber optic, not just a particular one. Structural members of the ship on the other hand are both less likely to fail and impossible to carry spares for. Since MTBF doesn't mean that ALL the parts will fail just that some will, we obviously wouldn't want to plan on replacing EVERYTHING, but some things like spare computer parts, switches, bearings and such that can be interchanged between a lot of different systems we could include enough of to make a difference. For others, some modest on-board manufacturing capability should be included. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Dec 20 05:20 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2354" "Sat" "20" "December" "1997" "14:19:19" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "50" "Re: starship-design: Does a one-way mission need mining?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA16052 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 05:20:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA16046 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 05:20:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-009.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xjOqc-001XaTC; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 14:21:42 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2353 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Does a one-way mission need mining? Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 14:19:19 +0100 Kelly, >>>Oh, I was thinking of fuel minning. If you want to manufacture things from >>>local resources, you'll need to do some ore refining. Since you'll need to >>>do more of that for a 1-way mission, you can't save any weight by leaving >>>that stuff off. >> >>?? At most we'd need to rebuild the starship. That still is a lot less >>material than the fuel. Actually we'd need much less than the whole >>starship. Likely most mass of the ship (engine structure, shield, hull, >>wall) does not need to be rebuild. That fraction of the mass left could be >>stored in a refined but raw form onboard the ship. So not much mining would >>be necessary. >>(BTW the heavy parts likely are metal, I believe metals can be quite easely >>recycled.) > >The mass to be processed would be greatest for the fuel, but I was refuring to >the mass of equipment you'ld need to bring along for a 2-way vs 1-way mission. So was I. >A 2-way mission requires fuel minnig and processing equipment. It and a 1-way >mission also require ship repair systems, and the spare parts, materials, and >mining and refining equipment for that (i.e. unrelated to fuel processing). >The second catagory of equipment and supplies would need to be greater for a >1-way mission given its much greater length. Indeed you'd need more to repair more, but would you need to do that much more mining? I was argueing that several materials could be easely recycled and those that couldn't be recylced would not necessarily need to be mined, but could also be stored on board in raw but refined form. >However the 2-way mission >requires far more fuel mining and processing equipment. A 1-way probably >could save some weight by procesing simple ores (space has extreamly high >grade ores floating around in it), and manufacturing somethings from that >rather then stored raw materials, but in most cases that wouldn't be critical. My arguement was the opposite for a one-way mission: Rather than taking large and specialized mining equipment with us, we'd recycle some of the easiest substances and take with us that what we can't recycle in its purest form. Recycling equipment would likely be little different from refining equipment, and recycling has the advantage that it already has quite pure materials to start with. (Metals are still pure, but merely a bit brittle) Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Dec 20 05:21 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1643" "Sat" "20" "December" "1997" "14:19:14" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "43" "Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA16678 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 05:21:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA16480 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 05:21:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-009.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xjOqX-001XYVC; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 14:21:37 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1642 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 14:19:14 +0100 Hi Kelly, >>OK, so apparently certain increased chances of premature death are accepted >>by the public. >>Now all that we need to figure out is what mission has the highest risk. We >>all know each others visions (at least from those that have written lately). >>I'd wish we'd a bit hard data. > >Two rules of thumb come to mind. > >1) >People will accept higher risk from thinks they are in control of, then things >others control. I.e. passengers worry more about the safety of airliners then >cars. Thou they are safer in the airliner, they are not in control. If a one-way mission would be launched the risks would be determined in advance just as with a two-way mission. If possible, both scenarios should have backup plans in case of major but not lethal failures. >2) >In a system, to increse relyability: > - Lower the stress and increase the tolerances (to wear or damage) of all > parts. > - The fewer things to break, the less likelyhood of failure. > - The less time you use a system (past the initial break in period) the less > likelyhood of problems. > >So a simpler system with the least demands for precision and stress factors, >will last longer with less problems or repairs. If you use such a system for >a shorter period of time, its far less likely to fail. Ah I see, like a low stress, simple engine that has to be turned on for a year over a period of about 30 years... Sorry, the engines that we think are necessary don't look that simple to me, they have a lot of parts that need to work without a single failure (else KABOOM). >Does any of this help? Not really, data is what may help. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Dec 20 05:22 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3042" "Sat" "20" "December" "1997" "14:19:17" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "57" "Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA16931 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 05:22:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA16912 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 05:22:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-009.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xjOqa-001XaUC; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 14:21:40 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 3041 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 14:19:17 +0100 Kelly, >>What areas and why would they do that? What if a 2 times longer life means a >>3 times higher price? From an economical view, the latter would likely make >>little sense, so I wonder if the military did research in that direction. > >The Mercedes Benz economics. Military systems do get that kind of treatment >since they HAVE to work, and will be used in the worst situations. NASA and >space systems get that treatment sometimes too. But to a degree it is always >assumed you can fix things in a decade or four, and you usually throw things >away, even if working fine, after a half century or so. What military system HAS to work? Virtually all systems have backups of some kind. While the backup is being used, the primary system can be repaired or replaced with all the outside help that may be needed. In case of field equipment where no direct outside help is available there too are many (although less efficient) backups available. It would not be very smart to bet on one single system during a fight, no matter how well designed. >Some things are easy to make more long lived. Heavier structures, thicker >tubing, better filtration on working fluids, etc will obvioiusly compensate >for a lot of things, if you can afford the weight. Circutry, and IC chips are >a bigger problem, especially if you don't want to dramatically decrease their >abilities. Etc.. When parallel computing is made to work, then making computers more robust is supposed to be easy. Furhermore superconducting magnets are great to avoid mechanical wear. (I'd suggest you'd use these on your hab train.) Also shielding equipment from a normal moist, temparture fluctuating, dusty environment increases lifetime significantly. >>Reserve toughness? So one can build in more than enough reserve (double?) >>toughness for engines, but not for micro objects that have much less >>stress... >>This argument doesn't fully convince me. > >The engines stress would be simple structural and thermal loads. So you can >compensate with tougher structures. Because of their scale the kind of >corosion or microdamage that would criple a micro object, would be phisically >to small to effect the performance of a macro object. Think of a pit of >corrosion the size of a pencil point on the surface of a sheet of metal as >think as table top. Now think if the same corrosion on the srface of a IC >chip, or a junction of an printed circut board. The very scale of the systems >make one vulnerable, the other indifferent, to the same damage. "Simple" structural loads? While the exhaust of a rocket engine looks crude and simple, the complete engine consists much more than that. I wonder if the fusion engines make the design simpler. That little bit of corrosion you talked about may very well affect reflectivity/conductivity that will escalate the corrosion within seconds (or less). If an engine part fails, disasterous things will happen. If a circuitboard fails, it likely can be repaired before lifetreathening situations arise. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Dec 20 15:59 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3489" "Sun" "21" "December" "1997" "00:57:35" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "70" "RE: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA18001 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 15:59:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA17987 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 15:59:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-026.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xjYoG-001XhyC; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 00:59:56 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 3488 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, lparker@cacaphony.net Subject: RE: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 00:57:35 +0100 Hi Lee, >> What areas and why would they do that? What if a 2 times longer life >> means a 3 times higher price? From an economical view, the latter >> would likely make little sense, so I wonder if the military did >> research in that direction. > >All flight and nuclear rated systems and some ground and naval combat >hardware, all propulsion and computational hardware, and even some common >handtools have strict reliability and lifecycle criteria in military >procurements. These criteria are typically at the leading edge of what is >available. As a quick comparison, try jet engines - some commercial >airlines fly cargo aircraft that are basically similar to some military >cargo aircraft, they even use nominally the same engines. However, the >military's version of the engine is rated for more hours between >maintenance and a generally longer total life cycle. This isn't even combat >hardware, so that excuse doesn't apply. Because of these requirements >military hardware generally costs more (sometimes a lot more) than similar >civilian hardware. But what is their goal with setting such high standards? Clearly not to use their equipment longer (which is our SD goal). More likely these higher standards are a byproduct of needing equipment that works in a wider range of external variations. (Eg. Their computers should work in freezing polar conditions but also in a hot and humid jungle.) Such variations are likely not what most equipment of our starship has to deal with. >> Reserve toughness? So one can build in more than enough reserve (double?) >> toughness for engines, but not for micro objects that have much less >> stress... >> This argument doesn't fully convince me. > >Sure you can, and we probably will, but oh the cost... While cost is an issue, there may not be such a huge difference in designing the majority of equipment to last 40 or 80 years. Anyhow, we started this discussion because Kelly said it was impossible, which is quite different from expensive. >but what I think Kelly is trying to say is that some systems are not as >easy to replace or carry spares for as others. Hmmm, I thought he was trying to say that some systems can more easely be made to last longer. >For instance, if you get a break in a fiber >optic control run, you take some out of spares and replace it. The same >fiber optic can be used to repair any fiber optic, not just a particular >one. Structural members of the ship on the other hand are both less likely >to fail and impossible to carry spares for. > >Since MTBF doesn't mean that ALL the parts will fail just that some will, >we obviously wouldn't want to plan on replacing EVERYTHING, but some things >like spare computer parts, switches, bearings and such that can be >interchanged between a lot of different systems we could include enough of >to make a difference. For others, some modest on-board manufacturing >capability should be included. Yes, several onboard manufacturing facilities are certainly needed (both for one and two way missions, but one-way likely needs more). Furthermore most parts of the ship should be constructed so that they can be repaired/remade with the manufacturing facilities onboard. The latter may mean that certain things have to be completely redesigned and that uniformity/compatibility is a main key. Rather than to design for efficiency in large numbers we need to design for efficiency in small numbers and limited equipment. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Dec 20 16:17 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["529" "Sun" "21" "December" "1997" "01:16:13" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "24" "starship-design: Shielding info" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA21884 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 16:17:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA21861 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 16:17:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-026.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xjZ6I-001XiyC; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 01:18:34 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 528 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Shielding info Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 01:16:13 +0100 About a month ago we discussed shielding properties. Here I found a little bit of info about that subject: (My guess is that some may have seen it before) Space Settlements: A Design Study Chapter 2 - Physical Properties of Space Matter in Space: A Major Resource Chapter 4 - Choosing Among Alternatives Shielding For passive shielding they suggest about 4.5 tonnes per square meter Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Dec 21 06:55 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4877" "Sun" "21" "December" "1997" "08:42:08" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "102" "RE: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA26758 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 06:55:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA26751 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 06:55:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p18.gnt.com [204.49.68.223]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA06185; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 08:54:48 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 08:54:44 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD0DEE.1571D0C0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 4876 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Timothy van der Linden'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 08:42:08 -0600 On Saturday, December 20, 1997 5:58 PM, Timothy van der Linden [SMTP:TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl] wrote: > > But what is their goal with setting such high standards? Clearly not to > use > their equipment longer (which is our SD goal). More likely these higher > standards are a byproduct of needing equipment that works in a wider > range > of external variations. (Eg. Their computers should work in freezing > polar > conditions but also in a hot and humid jungle.) Such variations are > likely > not what most equipment of our starship has to deal with. Yes, you are right that the missions of military systems and starships are driven by different philosophies. However, they both end up producing the same set of requirements for hardware. The military doesn't necessarily expect its systems to function at the designed lifetimes on a day to day basis. In fact, most systems are replaced or refurbished well short of the point at which they would fail. This is because the military needs to be certain that a certain percentage of its striking forces are ALWAYS available at instant notice. Consequently, the systems designs promulgated are tougher, more robust, and generally last longer than civilian designs. You can easily cancel that flight to Albuquerque if the jumbo jet breaks down. The military can cancel that battlefield reconnaissance flight because of a bad spark plug. Similarly, we, on a starship can only take a limited amount of supplies. This is our "payload fraction". This payload fraction includes the crew, our air, water and food; recycling machinery, living quarters, command and control areas, exploration equipment, auxiliary vehicles, spare parts, and repair facilities among other things. We cannot simply provide spares for everything. Some of the parts likely to require maintenance are part of the ship, not the payload fraction and as such, providing even one spare engine (for instance) would equal the total payload fraction. So we have to compromise. We build the major ship systems such as structural components, engines, fuel tanks and delivery systems with high levels of reserve capacity. I would think double the mission lifetime would be adequate. Other systems which are important but harder or to expensive to build so tough can engineered with some redundancy built in as in your example of computers (BTW, I know what you meant, but it doesn't work that way with parallel computers). Other systems such as light bulbs, etc. just have to be replaced or done without. Properly designed, these systems would have little if any effect on the eventual completion of the mission, their failure would just make things uncomfortable. > > While cost is an issue, there may not be such a huge difference in > designing > the majority of equipment to last 40 or 80 years. > Anyhow, we started this discussion because Kelly said it was impossible, > which is quite different from expensive. Well, maybe. If it becomes too expensive to design for the lifetimes we require then it is effectively impossible to build a starship. No one is going to pay for it... > Hmmm, I thought he was trying to say that some systems can more easely be > made to last longer. He did, and some can. We have just recently made advances in lubrication that will enable bearing lifetimes to more than double. So things like motors and pumps and hard drives will last longer. Some things we still have trouble understanding what caused them to fail in the first place, much less how to prevent them from doing it again. > Yes, several onboard manufacturing facilities are certainly needed (both > for > one and two way missions, but one-way likely needs more). Furthermore > most > parts of the ship should be constructed so that they can be > repaired/remade > with the manufacturing facilities onboard. The latter may mean that > certain > things have to be completely redesigned and that uniformity/compatibility > is > a main key. > Rather than to design for efficiency in large numbers we need to design > for > efficiency in small numbers and limited equipment. Which is an excellent point. This is the main reason I used the example of naval ships several weeks ago. They pretty much do exactly what you just described, albeit on a smaller scale then what we will have to achieve. After all, the analogy breaks down when you consider that if all else fails, a naval ship can call for a tug if it has to... Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- He who thro' vast immensity can pierce, See worlds on worlds compose one universe, Observe how system into system runs, What other planets circle other suns, What varied being peoples every star, May tell why Heav'n has made us as we are. - Alexander Pope From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Dec 21 06:55 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2093" "Sun" "21" "December" "1997" "08:16:52" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "45" "RE: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA26763 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 06:55:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA26757 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 06:55:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p18.gnt.com [204.49.68.223]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA06170; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 08:54:37 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 08:54:35 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD0DEE.100B5E80.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2092 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Timothy van der Linden'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 08:16:52 -0600 On Saturday, December 20, 1997 7:19 AM, Timothy van der Linden [SMTP:TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl] wrote: > What military system HAS to work? Virtually all systems have backups of > some > kind. While the backup is being used, the primary system can be repaired > or > replaced with all the outside help that may be needed. > I'm afraid the military is a little different than NASA, individual systems in the military rarely have backups, which is why such a high expectation is made for their reliability. Of course the military compensates by having a lot of alternate vehicles or extra equipment so that if the tank or aircraft or whatever won't fly, fight, etc., they can simply send a new one in its place. NASA, like interstellar explorers is somewhat limited in this respect. We can't send a FLEET of colony ships or explorer ships just to make sure that at least one gets there, so we have to take the alternate approach. We have to build the redundancy in to the system. As someone pointed out a few days ago, even though we can't yet engineer systems to perfection, we can do much better than we could only fifty years ago. It is very likely that we can build systems with 20 or even 30 year life expectancies by then. Even so, the limited ability we will have to send spares and/or backups will make interstellar travel hazardous. Every spare part or raw material carried will cut into the payload fraction of the vehicle. We will be forced to make compromises between spare parts/extra supplies/mission equipment. There are going to be some "Challenger" type disasters where we lose whole ship fulls of colonists. Rescue for the crew will be nearly impossible. Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- He who thro' vast immensity can pierce, See worlds on worlds compose one universe, Observe how system into system runs, What other planets circle other suns, What varied being peoples every star, May tell why Heav'n has made us as we are. - Alexander Pope From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Dec 21 09:48 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3800" "Sun" "21" "December" "1997" "12:45:23" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "82" "Re: Re: starship-design: Does a one-way mission need mining?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA21538 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 09:48:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.167]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA21533 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 09:48:16 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3799 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Does a one-way mission need mining? Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 12:45:23 EST In a message dated 12/20/97 7:21:47 AM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >Kelly, > >>>>Oh, I was thinking of fuel minning. If you want to manufacture things from >>>>local resources, you'll need to do some ore refining. Since you'll need to >>>>do more of that for a 1-way mission, you can't save any weight by leaving >>>>that stuff off. >>> >>>?? At most we'd need to rebuild the starship. That still is a lot less >>>material than the fuel. Actually we'd need much less than the whole >>>starship. Likely most mass of the ship (engine structure, shield, hull, >>>wall) does not need to be rebuild. That fraction of the mass left could be >>>stored in a refined but raw form onboard the ship. So not much mining would >>>be necessary. >>>(BTW the heavy parts likely are metal, I believe metals can be quite easely >>>recycled.) >> >>The mass to be processed would be greatest for the fuel, but I was refuring to >>the mass of equipment you'ld need to bring along for a 2-way vs 1-way mission. > >So was I. > >>A 2-way mission requires fuel minnig and processing equipment. It and a 1-way >>mission also require ship repair systems, and the spare parts, materials, and >>mining and refining equipment for that (i.e. unrelated to fuel processing). >>The second catagory of equipment and supplies would need to be greater for a >>1-way mission given its much greater length. > >Indeed you'd need more to repair more, but would you need to do that much >more mining? I was argueing that several materials could be easely recycled >and those that couldn't be recylced would not necessarily need to be mined, >but could also be stored on board in raw but refined form. > >>However the 2-way mission >>requires far more fuel mining and processing equipment. A 1-way probably >>could save some weight by procesing simple ores (space has extreamly high >>grade ores floating around in it), and manufacturing somethings from that >>rather then stored raw materials, but in most cases that wouldn't be critical. > >My arguement was the opposite for a one-way mission: Rather than taking >large and specialized mining equipment with us, we'd recycle some of the >easiest substances and take with us that what we can't recycle in its purest >form. >Recycling equipment would likely be little different from refining >equipment, and recycling has the advantage that it already has quite pure >materials to start with. (Metals are still pure, but merely a bit brittle) Recycling here and there would both have similar limitations. Some things like pure metals (aluminum)) or certain plastics are simple to reprocess/recycle. Other substances (composites, alloys, chemical componds,) are very dificult to disassociate down to pure chemical stock or simpler forms and reprocess back to usable form. So there, like here, its to difficult/expensive/massive to recycle; and synthasising replacements from freash ore is preferable. (Often a reason why recycling projects here fail, or are kept runing only as show peaces. Paper recycling is famed for that.) Given the fairly easy to access and rich sources of raw material in space, this would be even more desirable. Even systems like air recyclers might be shut down in favor of electralesizing water to make replacement air. (Certainly thats less difficult then breaking down CO2 and safer then alge.) The other major question is which would weigh more or be more relyable; carrying enough pre processed ore for the mission journey, or carrying refining equipment. Generally small ore processing systems weigh much less then the ore they process, but their may be a minimum effective size for some systems. If you might need a ton of processe ore, but the processor costs you 10 tons. You carry the 1 ton (assuming its stable). >Timothy Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Dec 21 09:49 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4402" "Sun" "21" "December" "1997" "12:45:30" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "94" "Re: Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA21672 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 09:49:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.174]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA21665 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 09:49:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <41248be6.349d55bc@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 4401 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 12:45:30 EST In a message dated 12/20/97 7:23:56 AM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >Kelly, > >>>What areas and why would they do that? What if a 2 times longer life means a >>>3 times higher price? From an economical view, the latter would likely make >>>little sense, so I wonder if the military did research in that direction. >> >>The Mercedes Benz economics. Military systems do get that kind of treatment >>since they HAVE to work, and will be used in the worst situations. NASA and >>space systems get that treatment sometimes too. But to a degree it is always >>assumed you can fix things in a decade or four, and you usually throw things >>away, even if working fine, after a half century or so. > >What military system HAS to work? Virtually all systems have backups of some >kind. While the backup is being used, the primary system can be repaired or >replaced with all the outside help that may be needed. >In case of field equipment where no direct outside help is available there >too are many (although less efficient) backups available. It would not be >very smart to bet on one single system during a fight, no matter how well >designed. To a degree ALL important systems are dedsigned that way. You always make sure the failure of one system would shut everything down, or at least not shut it down catostrophicly. But that not always practical. Rip one of the 4 tires of a truck or car, and the vehical is stuck until fixed. Since Military equipment is usually operated in as bad a situation as we can find (war) and put to the most adverse conditions the enimy can find, and operated away from suply and sevicing bases, its has to be very tough. Just like exploration equipment. >>Some things are easy to make more long lived. Heavier structures, thicker >>tubing, better filtration on working fluids, etc will obvioiusly compensate >>for a lot of things, if you can afford the weight. Circutry, and IC chips are >>a bigger problem, especially if you don't want to dramatically decrease their >>abilities. Etc.. > >When parallel computing is made to work, then making computers more robust >is supposed to be easy. Furhermore superconducting magnets are great to >avoid mechanical wear. (I'd suggest you'd use these on your hab train.) >Also shielding equipment from a normal moist, temparture fluctuating, dusty >environment increases lifetime significantly. Shadow processors are used even now to keep a hot back up, or verification systems, on-line. But sooner or later the computers will fail, and after comparativly short service lives. >>>Reserve toughness? So one can build in more than enough reserve (double?) >>>toughness for engines, but not for micro objects that have much less >>>stress... >>>This argument doesn't fully convince me. >> >>The engines stress would be simple structural and thermal loads. So you can >>compensate with tougher structures. Because of their scale the kind of >>corosion or microdamage that would criple a micro object, would be phisically >>to small to effect the performance of a macro object. Think of a pit of >>corrosion the size of a pencil point on the surface of a sheet of metal as >>think as table top. Now think if the same corrosion on the srface of a IC >>chip, or a junction of an printed circut board. The very scale of the systems >>make one vulnerable, the other indifferent, to the same damage. > >"Simple" structural loads? While the exhaust of a rocket engine looks crude >and simple, the complete engine consists much more than that. I wonder if >the fusion engines make the design simpler. That little bit of corrosion you >talked about may very well affect reflectivity/conductivity that will >escalate the corrosion within seconds (or less). The fusion engines are far simpler then standard rocket engines. I.E. few pumps, nozzels, no presure vessels, etc. I'm not clear what you mean about reflectivity/conductivity. Certainly a system with the scale your talking about wouldn't have its conductivity effected by surface blemishes. If its a problem, design the system so it will work with the entire surface corroded or clean. >If an engine part fails, disasterous things will happen. If a circuitboard >fails, it likely can be repaired before lifetreathening situations arise. That depends un what the circut board controls. Circut failures can and do kill people rapidly. >Timothy Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Dec 21 09:54 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2403" "Sun" "21" "December" "1997" "12:45:27" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "69" "Re: Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA22600 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 09:54:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.170]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA22548 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 09:54:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2402 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 12:45:27 EST In a message dated 12/20/97 7:22:33 AM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >Hi Kelly, > >>>OK, so apparently certain increased chances of premature death are accepted >>>by the public. >>>Now all that we need to figure out is what mission has the highest risk. We >>>all know each others visions (at least from those that have written lately). >>>I'd wish we'd a bit hard data. >> >>Two rules of thumb come to mind. >> >>1) >>People will accept higher risk from things they are in control of, then things >>others control. I.e. passengers worry more about the safety of airliners then >>cars. Thou they are safer in the airliner, they are not in control. > >If a one-way mission would be launched the risks would be determined in >advance just as with a two-way mission. If possible, both scenarios should >have backup plans in case of major but not lethal failures. I don't see how this relates to rule 1? >>2) >>In a system, to increse relyability: >> - Lower the stress and increase the tolerances (to wear or damage) of all >> parts. >> - The fewer things to break, the less likelyhood of failure. >> - The less time you use a system (past the initial break in period) the less >> likelyhood of problems. >> >>So a simpler system with the least demands for precision and stress factors, >>will last longer with less problems or repairs. If you use such a system for >>a shorter period of time, its far less likely to fail. > >Ah I see, like a low stress, simple engine that has to be turned on for a >year over a period of about 30 years... Sorry, the engines that we think are >necessary don't look that simple to me, they have a lot of parts that need >to work without a single failure (else KABOOM). That would be one example. By defintion the engines are going to be one of the least used systems. I can't see why you think the engines would be unusually complicated? Certainly compared to a lot of other systems on the ship they have few moving parts, few things to go wrong, and use simple LARGE structures to carry purly electrical, structural, megnetic, and thermal loads. They are the most like major power plants here, which have unusually long service lives (usually 40 years of continuous operation) compared to more complex ship systems like computers, sensors, shuttles, etc. >>Does any of this help? > >Not really, data is what may help. Sorry >Timothy Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Dec 21 17:15 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["749" "Sun" "21" "December" "1997" "20:07:05" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "35" "Re: starship-design: Shielding info" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA18592 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 17:15:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.174]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA18582 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 17:14:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <7811df86.349dbd3b@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 748 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Shielding info Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 20:07:05 EST In a message dated 12/20/97 6:29:03 PM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >About a month ago we discussed shielding properties. > >Here I found a little bit of info about that subject: >(My guess is that some may have seen it before) > > SpaceSettlement/75SummerStudy/Table_of_Contents1.html> > > > >Space Settlements: A Design Study > >Chapter 2 - Physical Properties of Space > Matter in Space: A Major Resource > >Chapter 4 - Choosing Among Alternatives > Shielding > > >For passive shielding they suggest about 4.5 tonnes per square meter > >Timothy ;) We had refered to that a couple years ago, Its even in the LIAT "library' bookmarks. Excelent source thou. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 23 12:10 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["932" "Tue" "23" "December" "1997" "14:33:45" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "29" "starship-design: Re: Solarfm" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA02848 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 12:10:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.169]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA02817 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 12:10:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 931 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Solarfm@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Solarfm Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 14:33:45 EST In a message dated 12/23/97 12:47:41 PM, you wrote: >GREAT!! I am very glad to hear this. I always thought I had to wait another 15 >years before I started working on this stuff!!!! > >O.K., just another little comment.. You know how a piece of matter, just a meator >the sise of a ball point of a pen could bring major dammage to the space shuttle. >well, traveling at 30% the speed of light, especially with a fusion reacter, just >a small fragment could destroy the entire ship if it hit in the right place. How >do you avoid this? > >Solarfm A piece of dust could go off like a bomb. By throwing a cloud of dust ahead of the ship, it would plow throughvolume of space ahead of the ship and blast it clean. You'ld have to keep restocking the dust, but it would clean a path for the ship. Past that, you try to keep important stuff away from the frount of the ship. Generally the slug of fuel is stowed up there. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 23 14:03 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["872" "Mon" "22" "December" "1997" "14:05:02" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "30" "starship-design: Re: Solarfm" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA29760 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 14:03:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.174]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA29721 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 14:03:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <31e11751.349eb9e1@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 871 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Solarfm@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Solarfm Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 14:05:02 EST In a message dated 12/21/97 12:05:33 PM, you wrote: >Holiday Greetings! > >I had a little question about your Lunar Institute of technology. Even though I >am 13 years old and only in 8th grade, I was wondering If I could become part of >the Starship disgign team. I know I dont have a Phd, or even a bachlor in anything >yet, but if there is any way I could help in anyway for any of the starships, let >me know > >Have a happy Holiday! Write back soon! > >Solar Fm You could join the discusion group and see if you have any ideas. Just listen in for a while and see if their is something you want to comment on or research. I'm afraid were not very organized, so I can't really give you an asignment or anything. The membership has droped lately, and is mainly collage students or above, but PhD's were never a requirement. Hope you find us interesting! Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 23 14:51 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["351" "Tue" "23" "December" "1997" "12:45:30" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "11" "Re: starship-design: Shielding info" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA21946 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 14:51:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA21015 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 14:49:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-020.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xkSoW-001XNkC; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 12:47:56 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 350 Status: O X-Status: From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Shielding info Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 12:45:30 +0100 > ;) We had refered to that a couple years ago, Its even in the LIAT >"library' bookmarks. Yes, I think I got it from there a year ago, downloaded it on my harddrive to read it off line. Well, I finally read it this weekend ;) Since no one referred to it during our discussion, I figured that no one had explicitly remembered about it. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 24 08:42 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["489" "Wed" "24" "December" "1997" "11:34:27" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "17" "Re: Re: starship-design: Shielding info" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA23223 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 08:42:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.166]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA23183 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 08:42:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 488 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Shielding info Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 11:34:27 EST In a message dated 12/23/97 4:56:17 PM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >> ;) We had refered to that a couple years ago, Its even in the LIAT >>"library' bookmarks. > >Yes, I think I got it from there a year ago, downloaded it on my harddrive >to read it off line. Well, I finally read it this weekend ;) Since no one >referred to it during our discussion, I figured that no one had explicitly >remembered about it. > >Timothy Or were the only two to bother to read it. ;) Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Dec 24 08:47 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["473" "Wed" "24" "December" "1997" "11:34:29" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "19" "starship-design: Re: Solarfm" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA23780 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 08:47:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.167]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA23768 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 08:47:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47117377.34a13998@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 472 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Solarfm@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Solarfm Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 11:34:29 EST In a message dated 12/23/97 7:31:18 PM, you wrote: >Salutations > >Just out of curosity, where is your powersource? If it doesn't take up to much >energy, how big of a magnetic field would you need to repel things away from the >ship? instead of storing dust and then retracting it, why not use a giant magnet? Objects impacting at 1/3rd light speed might be imposible to deflect in time. Thou it is worth checking. The power source is another fusion reactor. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Dec 27 11:33 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1688" "Sat" "27" "December" "1997" "14:31:07" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "44" "starship-design: Re: Deflecter shield" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA08520 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 11:33:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.169]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA08514 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 11:33:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <827b8a4d.34a5577e@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1687 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Solarfm@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Deflecter shield Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 14:31:07 EST In a message dated 12/26/97 9:53:04 PM, you wrote: >Hi Kelly, > >well, you havent Emailed me back yet so I figured I would tell you of my idea. > >This is totally therotical, and I still have to check to see if it works. Imagine >a huge curcular tube. Then Imagine two smaller identical tubes. Heres how it works. >The smaller tubes send out a magnetic field, say negitive. Now, their field is >strong far away from the ship, but week twords the ship. The bigger one is opisite. >I still dont know how I will pull it off. Now heres how it works. A micrometeroite >is heading for the ship. It stumbles on to the negitive charge given by the two >smaller tubes. Thern, it gets negitively charged. When it gets closer to the ship, >it then stubles on to the popsitive charge given by the larger one. what happens? >It gets repelled away. *( Preety neat, hunh?) > >This is totally theoretical. I am not sure how to make the fields in the sescription, >b I'm not clear how you thought the negativly charged tubes away from the ship would charge passing junk. Beyond that, the problem is that not everything picks up a magnetic charge, and you need to deflect things with a lot of force to get them clear of the ship. Also I'm not clear how the tubes are aranged. For example you can't shove the debres forward, because that would slow down the ship and take to long. You want to shove stuff to the side, since that would take less energy and not slow the ship down as much. One way to charge things is with heat. If you zap stuff with a laser or microwaves or something it ionizes. Ions have electrical and magnetic charge. The down side is that it could take a lot of power. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Dec 27 15:43 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2502" "Sun" "28" "December" "1997" "00:42:37" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "62" "starship-design: Re: holidays" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA17376 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 15:43:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA17359 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 15:43:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-005.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xm5ui-001VwPC; Sun, 28 Dec 1997 00:45:04 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2501 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: holidays Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 00:42:37 +0100 Hi, Xmas is past, time to get some of these Emails answered. I Just finished another one of our 5 Emails. A Dutch friend of mine was wondering if I was still alive, since I hadn't answered within a day... He doesn't have vacation, so I guess his pace makes me look slow ;-) >>>Sounds interesting, and hectic! >> >>Well, knowing myself I'll not hurry myself with hobbies. > > ;) Seems my C++ programming has to wait, the snailmail is a bit slow these days. Even though the importer had the software package in stock, for some reason they haven't been able to get it to my local store yet. My guess is that I'll get it at the last few days of my vacation. Ah, what the heck, sofar I had enough to do, to not notice that I already ate away one week of my two week vacation. I'm always amazed how seemingly inefficient my spare time is used. I guess it has to do with the fact that one does new things (in contrast to most jobs where you more or less repeat yourself). Of course there is some amount of lazy time in between, but still. (Even writing a little bit of text like this seems to take longer than you'd think in advance.) >>>Oh, did you get the letter about my job trip to newark New Jersey? Some of >>>the lettersgot ate. (I'll tag it below just incase.) >> >>Nope, never saw it before. Boy, did you have bad luck... or did you call it >>upon yourself? I guess you shouldn't make hasty decisions about important >>things like these. > >Very very true, something I was kicking myself for on the trip back. I later >found out that that company used to be ver respectasble, but over the last 2 >years has developed a nasty reputation for such actions. Everyone who knew of >them and read that letter said they never work with that company anymore. > >NOW they tell me! That always happens, no one tells you about their sores, unless you tell them first. >>I only wonder why that last guy took all that trouble to get you nowhere. He >>could have told you to go home the first time. I wonder can't you sue him? >>(He did hire you as soon as you said yes.) > >I'm looking in to that, at the least I'ld like to get the $708 dollars of >expences the trip cost me. I'll see. My guess is that they already have dozens of trials on hold. >>What about writing good old application letters to adds in the papers? > >The kind of jobs I do aren't often listed in papers (frustrating for me). Actually I didn't mean just normal papers, I thought specialist journals did have such adds. Tim From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Dec 28 06:29 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["121" "Sun" "28" "December" "1997" "15:28:14" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "13" "starship-design: Re: holidays" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA23579 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 28 Dec 1997 06:29:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA23573 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 1997 06:29:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-029.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xmJjk-001WdwC; Sun, 28 Dec 1997 15:30:40 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 120 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: holidays Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 15:28:14 +0100 I wrote >>Hi, >> >>Xmas is past, time to get some of these Emails answered. Uh, oh... Wrong address, sorry Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 29 08:30 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2565" "Mon" "29" "December" "1997" "17:27:34" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "53" "Re: Re: starship-design: Does a one-way mission need mining?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA07316 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 08:28:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA07308 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 08:28:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-024.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xmi4n-001WeOC; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 17:30:01 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2564 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Does a one-way mission need mining? Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 17:27:34 +0100 To Kelly: >>My arguement was the opposite for a one-way mission: Rather than taking >>large and specialized mining equipment with us, we'd recycle some of the >>easiest substances and take with us that what we can't recycle in its purest >>form. >>Recycling equipment would likely be little different from refining >>equipment, and recycling has the advantage that it already has quite pure >>materials to start with. (Metals are still pure, but merely a bit brittle) > >Recycling here and there would both have similar limitations. Some things >like pure metals (aluminum)) or certain plastics are simple to >reprocess/recycle. >Other substances (composites, alloys, chemical componds,) >are very dificult to disassociate down to pure chemical stock or simpler forms >and reprocess back to usable form. True, so we should try to avoid these substances. This may mean shorter durability and other undesired characteristics. Whether we should really avoid them, will depend on how undesired the properties are and how heavy the are to take with us, or how difficult they are to mine in space. >So there, like here, its to >difficult/expensive/massive to recycle; and synthasising replacements from >freash ore is preferable. (Often a reason why recycling projects here fail, >or are kept runing only as show peaces. Paper recycling is famed for that.) I don't think we'll be harvesting wood at Tau Ceti though... So we'll have to replace some things we take for granted here at Earth anyhow. >Given the fairly easy to access and rich sources of raw material in space, >this would be even more desirable. Even systems like air recyclers might be >shut down in favor of electralesizing water to make replacement air. Well, I don't know that much about lifesupport systems, but I wonder: When air can be kept usable for a 5 to 10 year trip trough space, is it that much harder to keep it usable for a much longer period? >(Certainly thats less difficult then breaking down CO2 and safer then alge.) > >The other major question is which would weigh more or be more relyable; >carrying enough pre processed ore for the mission journey, or carrying >refining equipment. Generally small ore processing systems weigh much less >then the ore they process, but their may be a minimum effective size for some >systems. If you might need a ton of processe ore, but the processor costs you >10 tons. You carry the 1 ton (assuming its stable). I agree, however if we need all kinds of ores, we'll spent a lot of time searching for accessable mining places. Tim From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 29 08:34 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3870" "Mon" "29" "December" "1997" "17:27:29" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "75" "Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA07873 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 08:33:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA07808 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 08:32:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-024.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xmi4i-001WveC; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 17:29:56 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 3869 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 17:27:29 +0100 Kelly wrote: >>What military system HAS to work? Virtually all systems have backups of some >>kind. While the backup is being used, the primary system can be repaired or >>replaced with all the outside help that may be needed. >>In case of field equipment where no direct outside help is available there >>too are many (although less efficient) backups available. It would not be >>very smart to bet on one single system during a fight, no matter how well >>designed. > >To a degree ALL important systems are dedsigned that way. You always make >sure the failure of one system would * shut everything down, or at least not >shut it down catostrophicly. But that not always practical. Rip one of the 4 >tires of a truck or car, and the vehical is stuck until fixed. Since Military >equipment is usually operated in as bad a situation as we can find (war) and >put to the most adverse conditions the enimy can find, and operated away from >suply and sevicing bases, its has to be very tough. Just like exploration >equipment. [I think you forgot a "not" at the * in the above paragraph] It has to be tough, but not into extremes, since backups are available or will be shortly. I'd guess that if military cars had to be made more reliable, they should not use air-pressured tires. Chances of a car getting stranded by a punctured tire on rough terrain seem to be rather high. BTW Many succesful explorers from the past used equipment that they could repair or rebuild themselves without outside help. Several expedition leaders designed equipment with that criteriom themselves before they went exploring. >>When parallel computing is made to work, then making computers more robust >>is supposed to be easy. Furhermore superconducting magnets are great to >>avoid mechanical wear. (I'd suggest you'd use these on your hab train.) >>Also shielding equipment from a normal moist, temparture fluctuating, dusty >>environment increases lifetime significantly. > >Shadow processors are used even now to keep a hot back up, or verification >systems, on-line. But sooner or later the computers will fail, and after >comparativly short service lives. While some applications may ask for highgrad computing power, many don't need to. In much electric equipment limits are pushed, something that we certainly can't trust to do in our starship. So we should make circuits/chips that have the computing power of x years back but use the much more precise and reliable technology of today. Similar to what Zenon wrote, we shouldn't expect the same luxuries as in our homes. >>"Simple" structural loads? While the exhaust of a rocket engine looks crude >>and simple, the complete engine consists much more than that. I wonder if >>the fusion engines make the design simpler. That little bit of corrosion you >>talked about may very well affect reflectivity/conductivity that will >>escalate the corrosion within seconds (or less). > >The fusion engines are far simpler then standard rocket engines. I.E. few >pumps, nozzels, no presure vessels, etc. I'm not clear what you mean about >reflectivity/conductivity. Certainly a system with the scale your talking >about wouldn't have its conductivity effected by surface blemishes. If its a >problem, design the system so it will work with the entire surface corroded or >clean. If a fusion engine is so simple, then a fusion power plants should not be to hard to build and maintain either. What I've seen from fusion power designs is that they look pretty complex, more complex than chemical rocket engines. >>If an engine part fails, disasterous things will happen. If a circuitboard >>fails, it likely can be repaired before lifetreathening situations arise. > >That depends un what the circut board controls. Circut failures can and do >kill people rapidly. I don't know what kind of circuit failure you mean. Tim From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 29 09:18 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1674" "Mon" "29" "December" "1997" "17:27:32" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "38" "RE: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA18364 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 09:18:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from helium.tip.nl (helium.tip.nl [195.18.64.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA18326 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 09:17:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-024.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xmi4l-001WyeC; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 17:29:59 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1673 From: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 17:27:32 +0100 Hi Lee, >>But what is their goal with setting such high standards? Clearly not to >>use their equipment longer (which is our SD goal). More likely these >>higher standards are a byproduct of needing equipment that works in a >>wider range of external variations. (Eg. Their computers should work in >>freezing polar conditions but also in a hot and humid jungle.) Such >>variations are likely not what most equipment of our starship has to >>deal with. > >Yes, you are right that the missions of military systems and starships are >driven by different philosophies. However, they both end up producing the >same set of requirements for hardware. Yes, but not exactly. They indeed make tougher equipment. But since they have to cover a wider range of external variations, they have much less options to make the equipment tough. In the extreme case they may have to compromize lifespan in one condition to still make things work in another condition. Since we may have a much smaller range of variations, we may increase lifespan a lot over several military equipment. >> Hmmm, I thought he was trying to say that some systems can more easely be >> made to last longer. > >He did, and some can. We have just recently made advances in lubrication >that will enable bearing lifetimes to more than double. So things like >motors and pumps and hard drives will last longer. Some things we still >have trouble understanding what caused them to fail in the first place, >much less how to prevent them from doing it again. Hmmm, can you give me an example of a thing where we don't understand why it failed? (Just trying to understand what you are talking about.) Tim From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 29 09:49 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["382" "Mon" "29" "December" "1997" "12:48:18" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "17" "starship-design: Re: Disscusion" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA26474 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 09:49:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.169]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA26461 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 09:48:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <9e8b64cb.34a7e264@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 381 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Solarfm@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Disscusion Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 12:48:18 EST In a message dated 12/27/97 1:30:07 PM, you wrote: >Hi, > >How would I get into a disgian disscusion group? > >Solarfm To subscribe, mail to majordomo@lists.uoregon.edu and put the following line in the body (NOT the subject line) of your message: subscribe starship-design [your email address] Be sure to use your fully-qualified, correct email address when subscribing. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 29 11:38 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3103" "Mon" "29" "December" "1997" "14:37:10" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "72" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Does a one-way mission need mining?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA00865 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 11:38:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.172]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA00851 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 11:38:41 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3b13553a.34a7fbe9@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3102 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Does a one-way mission need mining? Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 14:37:10 EST In a message dated 12/29/97 10:31:16 AM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >>>My arguement was the opposite for a one-way mission: Rather than taking >>>large and specialized mining equipment with us, we'd recycle some of the >>>easiest substances and take with us that what we can't recycle in its purest >>>form. >>>Recycling equipment would likely be little different from refining >>>equipment, and recycling has the advantage that it already has quite pure >>>materials to start with. (Metals are still pure, but merely a bit brittle) >> >>Recycling here and there would both have similar limitations. Some things >>like pure metals (aluminum)) or certain plastics are simple to >>reprocess/recycle. >>Other substances (composites, alloys, chemical componds,) >>are very dificult to disassociate down to pure chemical stock or simpler forms >>and reprocess back to usable form. > >True, so we should try to avoid these substances. This may mean shorter >durability and other undesired characteristics. Whether we should really >avoid them, will depend on how undesired the properties are and how heavy >the are to take with us, or how difficult they are to mine in space. True, but that might not be possible. For example: Lab chemicals, industrial maintenence/clening chemicals, medicines, IC chips, etc would fall into the complex chemical and alloy catagories. >>So there, like here, its to >>difficult/expensive/massive to recycle; and synthasising replacements from >>freash ore is preferable. (Often a reason why recycling projects here fail, >>or are kept runing only as show peaces. Paper recycling is famed for that.) > >I don't think we'll be harvesting wood at Tau Ceti though... So we'll have >to replace some things we take for granted here at Earth anyhow. > >>Given the fairly easy to access and rich sources of raw material in space, >>this would be even more desirable. Even systems like air recyclers might be >>shut down in favor of electralesizing water to make replacement air. > >Well, I don't know that much about lifesupport systems, but I wonder: When >air can be kept usable for a 5 to 10 year trip trough space, is it that much >harder to keep it usable for a much longer period? Depends on what it takes to do the recycling? Could be the equipment would be harder to keep runing then the equip needed to split water. >>(Certainly thats less difficult then breaking down CO2 and safer then alge.) >> >>The other major question is which would weigh more or be more relyable; >>carrying enough pre processed ore for the mission journey, or carrying >>refining equipment. Generally small ore processing systems weigh much less >>then the ore they process, but their may be a minimum effective size for some >>systems. If you might need a ton of processe ore, but the processor costs you >>10 tons. You carry the 1 ton (assuming its stable). > >I agree, however if we need all kinds of ores, we'll spent a lot of time >searching for accessable mining places. True, but the need for ores should lessen dramatically with shorter mission times. >Tim Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 29 11:40 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5515" "Mon" "29" "December" "1997" "14:37:14" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "117" "Re: Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA01370 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 11:40:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.176]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA01217 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 11:40:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <6fe1f075.34a7fbed@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 5514 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 14:37:14 EST In a message dated 12/29/97 10:35:00 AM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >Kelly wrote: > >>>What military system HAS to work? Virtually all systems have backups of some >>>kind. While the backup is being used, the primary system can be repaired or >>>replaced with all the outside help that may be needed. >>>In case of field equipment where no direct outside help is available there >>>too are many (although less efficient) backups available. It would not be >>>very smart to bet on one single system during a fight, no matter how well >>>designed. >> >>To a degree ALL important systems are dedsigned that way. You always make >>sure the failure of one system would not shut everything down, or at least not >>shut it down catostrophicly. But that not always practical. Rip one of the 4 >>tires of a truck or car, and the vehical is stuck until fixed. Since Military >>equipment is usually operated in as bad a situation as we can find (war) and >>put to the most adverse conditions the enimy can find, and operated away from >>suply and sevicing bases, its has to be very tough. Just like exploration >>equipment. > >It has to be tough, but not into extremes, since backups are available or >will be shortly. I'd guess that if military cars had to be made more >reliable, they should not use air-pressured tires. Chances of a car getting >stranded by a punctured tire on rough terrain seem to be rather high. >BTW Many succesful explorers from the past used equipment that they could >repair or rebuild themselves without outside help. Several expedition >leaders designed equipment with that criteriom themselves before they went >exploring. True but unlike explorers of the past, interstellar explorers would be able to carru enough to fix things that are as sophisticated as they need. We'ld probably need to accept that the exploration gear will only last a few years, archive the data, and make the ship systemsm durable enough to get back. >>>When parallel computing is made to work, then making computers more robust >>>is supposed to be easy. Furhermore superconducting magnets are great to >>>avoid mechanical wear. (I'd suggest you'd use these on your hab train.) >>>Also shielding equipment from a normal moist, temparture fluctuating, dusty >>>environment increases lifetime significantly. >> >>Shadow processors are used even now to keep a hot back up, or verification >>systems, on-line. But sooner or later the computers will fail, and after >>comparativly short service lives. > >While some applications may ask for highgrad computing power, many don't >need to. In much electric equipment limits are pushed, something that we >certainly can't trust to do in our starship. >So we should make circuits/chips that have the computing power of x years >back but use the much more precise and reliable technology of today. Given that even 10 year old circuts are generally a 100 times less capable then current systems, that might not be acceptable. Also its not clear that old design IC's built with new equipment would last especially longer then current designs built on the same equipment. >Similar to what Zenon wrote, we shouldn't expect the same luxuries as in our >homes. The ship is a high tech exploration system. Computing power isn't a luxury. Any cut in computer sophistication will be a direct impact in the ability of the science teams on the ship to analiae the data the surveyteams on the ground, and the probes, recover. >>>"Simple" structural loads? While the exhaust of a rocket engine looks crude >>>and simple, the complete engine consists much more than that. I wonder if >>>the fusion engines make the design simpler. That little bit of corrosion you >>>talked about may very well affect reflectivity/conductivity that will >>>escalate the corrosion within seconds (or less). >> >>The fusion engines are far simpler then standard rocket engines. I.E. few >>pumps, nozzels, no presure vessels, etc. I'm not clear what you mean about >>reflectivity/conductivity. Certainly a system with the scale your talking >>about wouldn't have its conductivity effected by surface blemishes. If its a >>problem, design the system so it will work with the entire surface corroded or >>clean. > >If a fusion engine is so simple, then a fusion power plants should not be to >hard to build and maintain either. What I've seen from fusion power designs >is that they look pretty complex, more complex than chemical rocket engines. Power plants would need to be a little more complicated since they need to convert reactor power to electric powe. Also the current designs (ignoring the magnetic tourus systems which are pretty unusable) arn't that complicated. Even better most of their components are large blocks of materials (lenses and photo multipliers for laser fusion, thick conductor bands for magnetic and electrostatis control systems, heavy metal support structure, etc.). Compared to a computer core their trivial. >>>If an engine part fails, disasterous things will happen. If a circuitboard >>>fails, it likely can be repaired before lifetreathening situations arise. >> >>That depends un what the circut board controls. Circut failures can and do >>kill people rapidly. > >I don't know what kind of circuit failure you mean. Anything that could disrupt the function of the circut. (Corosion shorting out pathways, capacitors starting to leak, diodes breaking down and not filtering the electron flows, IC chips logic burning out, etc.) >Tim Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 29 11:41 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["317" "Mon" "29" "December" "1997" "14:37:17" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "11" "starship-design: Re: updating?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA02654 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 11:41:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.177]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA02647 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 11:41:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <69e17814.34a7fbef@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 316 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: MrRob99@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: updating? Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 14:37:17 EST In a message dated 12/28/97 3:19:02 PM, you wrote: >when are you going to update this LIT website of yours? Don't know. There doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in it amoung the group at the moment. All of my last revision hasn't been uploaded yet, and I don't have much time to work up a new one yet. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 29 18:53 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1453" "Mon" "29" "December" "1997" "20:23:15" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "30" "RE: Re: starship-design: Does a one-way mission need mining?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA28634 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 18:53:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA28610 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 18:53:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p30.gnt.com [204.49.68.235]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA05506; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 20:53:11 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 20:52:40 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD149B.B3ABA960.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1452 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Timothy van der Linden'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: Does a one-way mission need mining? Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 20:23:15 -0600 On Monday, December 29, 1997 10:28 AM, Timothy van der Linden [SMTP:TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl] wrote: > > True, so we should try to avoid these substances. This may mean shorter > durability and other undesired characteristics. Whether we should really > avoid them, will depend on how undesired the properties are and how heavy > the are to take with us, or how difficult they are to mine in space. > Unfortunately, this isn't always possible. What Kelly means is that some everyday substances have very strong chemical bonds which makes them difficult to disassociate into their constituent elements. It isn't impossible, merely difficult and expensive. Now from a starship's point of view, where EVERYTHING is precious, this may not matter. We have energy to burn and it is MUCH more expensive to send a replacement from Earth so Kelly's point is only half valid. The thrust of his argument however was simply that it would be cheaper (mass wise and energy wise) to simply mine new raw ore at the destination system. > Well, I don't know that much about lifesupport systems, but I wonder: > When > air can be kept usable for a 5 to 10 year trip trough space, is it that > much > harder to keep it usable for a much longer period? Recycling isn't the problem, air loss is. We can't seal a ship sufficiently tight to prevent leakage from becoming a problem after a few years. I'm afraid we are rather poor engineers at the moment... Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Dec 29 18:53 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2499" "Mon" "29" "December" "1997" "20:43:41" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "65" "RE: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA28730 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 18:53:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA28698 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 18:53:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p30.gnt.com [204.49.68.235]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA05518; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 20:53:19 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 20:53:15 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD149B.C85D8360.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2498 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Timothy van der Linden'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: What is safest? Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 20:43:41 -0600 On Monday, December 29, 1997 10:27 AM, Timothy van der Linden [SMTP:TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl] wrote: > > [I think you forgot a "not" at the * in the above paragraph] > It has to be tough, but not into extremes, since backups are available or > will be shortly. I'd guess that if military cars had to be made more > reliable, they should not use air-pressured tires. Chances of a car > getting > stranded by a punctured tire on rough terrain seem to be rather high. They ARE designed that way...they have special foam filled tires on all military combat vehicles that use pneumatic tires. Of course for ordinary vehicles on base, they don't waste the expense. > BTW Many successful explorers from the past used equipment that they could > repair or rebuild themselves without outside help. Several expedition > leaders designed equipment with that criterion themselves before they > went > exploring. > Which is probably a lesson we should keep well in hand. > > While some applications may ask for highgrad computing power, many don't > need to. In much electric equipment limits are pushed, something that we > certainly can't trust to do in our starship. > So we should make circuits/chips that have the computing power of x years > back but use the much more precise and reliable technology of today. > Similar to what Zenon wrote, we shouldn't expect the same luxuries as in > our > homes. > Well, the technological level of many of the systems in the ship will be many years behind the "bleeding edge". This is almost a fact of life with NASA. Your average hand held organizer is smarter than most of the computers on the space shuttle... > > If a fusion engine is so simple, then a fusion power plants should not be > to > hard to build and maintain either. What I've seen from fusion power > designs > is that they look pretty complex, more complex than chemical rocket > engines. Timothy, that wasn't even logical. A napalm bomb is a fairly simple device compared to a gasoline engine and they both use the same fuel, think about it. > >That depends un what the circut board controls. Circut failures can and > >do > >kill people rapidly. > > I don't know what kind of circuit failure you mean. Umm, how about a short in the sensor that controls the level of residual CO2 in the atmosphere of the ship? Or maybe the circuit that activates the refueling valve for the oxygen supply, thereby venting the oxygen to space? There has to be at least a million ways... Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Dec 30 17:28 PST 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["252" "Tue" "30" "December" "1997" "20:21:07" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "16" "starship-design: Re: solarfm" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA17159 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 17:28:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.170]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA17149 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 17:28:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <71da8d53.34a99e05@aol.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 251 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Solarfm@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: solarfm Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 20:21:07 EST In a message dated 12/30/97 10:44:35 AM, you wrote: >Hi > >I gave the command as you said, but I jsut got a reply that said "end of command" >what does that mean? > > >Solarfm I don't know, try posting a test message to the discusion group. Kelly