From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 3 10:55 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2802" "Sat" "3" "January" "1998" "19:53:23" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "61" "RE: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA28811 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jan 1998 10:55:39 -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 KAA28803 for ; Sat, 3 Jan 1998 10:55:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-020.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xoYkE-001YIgC; Sat, 3 Jan 1998 19:56:26 +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: 2801 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: Sat, 03 Jan 1998 19:53:23 +0100 Hi Lee, >> 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. Wow, you say something today and it's implemented tomorrow. ;) >> 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... True, however the crew could build some things themselves using theories and data that are transmitted to the ship from Earth. These would be water drops on a hot plate though. >> 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. Hmm, I didn't think of comparing a bomb to a starship exhaust. While I've heard of designs that actually propose exploding an H-bomb behind the ship, I didn't think we'd do it that litterally. It surely would ask a lot more of structural enhancing. For a more graduate flight, you'd need a little bit more control than a bomb. My guess is that the kind of control and savety is comparable to that of a fusion powerplant. (Afterall we are talking about power outputs several order bigger than we are used to from ordinary power plants.) >> 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... Sure, there must also be a million ways for a nuclear power plant to meltdown. My guess is that we'd have some independant backup systems for critical systems. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 3 10:56 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5635" "Sat" "3" "January" "1998" "19:53:17" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "107" "Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA28956 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jan 1998 10:56:18 -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 KAA28928 for ; Sat, 3 Jan 1998 10:56:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-020.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xoYk9-001YIeC; Sat, 3 Jan 1998 19:56:21 +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: 5634 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, 03 Jan 1998 19:53:17 +0100 Hello Kelly, >>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. Explorers of the past could haul large amounts too, however it hindered their progress, often too much to reach their goal. We may be able to carry enough to fix sophisticated equipment, but it likely would increase ship weight (and crew) far beyond what would be the minimum for a succesful mission. >>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. Well let me give a simple example then: Say you've two gears, in the past the quality of steel was rather poor, so they had to be big to have a reasonable lifetime. Now we can control the strength of steel much better so can make these gears thinner and smaller and still have the same lifetime. I'd guess that if we used better steel and kept the same size as in the past, then we'd really increase lifetime. Indeed the much larger mass of such a gear may not be acceptable, but if it means that it will need much less maintenance, thus less crew, thus less food, thus a smaller habitat, then I wonder if it really is less acceptable. >>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. Well, would todays technology combined with shortlived 2050 technology really be too crude for an interstellar exploration mission? (The 2050 equipment would be used until it failed and then the old and easier to repair technology would be used for further exploration.) >>>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 power. 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. I wasn't comparing with a computer core, but with a chemical propulsion system (although I could have been more explicit). I believe that according to Lee todays propulsion systems do have a MTBF long enough for a two-way mission. I wondered whether fusion rockets would have similar reliability, since they likely are more complex than their chemical counterparts. And if our rockets are pulsed, they may get much more structural stress than chemical rockets that as far as I know are continuous. Furthermore, while a fusion rocket may not need to turn the heat into electricity, it still is comparable with a fusion powerplant, since it too has to control the energy flow. It can't just be compared to a H-bomb, which can freely expand in all directions and hoped to do as much damage as possible. >>>>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.) How do these kill people rapidly? I'd expect some authonomous backup systems. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 3 10:57 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["697" "Sat" "3" "January" "1998" "19:53:21" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "18" "starship-design: Re: Does a one-way mission need mining?" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA29095 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jan 1998 10:57:05 -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 KAA29042 for ; Sat, 3 Jan 1998 10:56:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-020.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xoYkC-001YIcC; Sat, 3 Jan 1998 19:56:24 +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: 696 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: Does a one-way mission need mining? Date: Sat, 03 Jan 1998 19:53:21 +0100 To Lee and Kelly, At the moment I've not much more to add to this subject. The next is about what I can conclude of the discussions about mining vs. recycling. * Manufacturing and refining equipment are always necessary. * Mining is only possible during in system stay. * Recycling can be done at any time. * Some form of recycling equipment has to be on the ship anyhow. * Recycling combined with storing substances in the shield may make mining unnecessary. (#) * Some form of mining equipment has to be on the ship if (#) is impossible. * Finding relative easy accessable ores may be timeconsuming and specialistic. * Recycling is relatively constant and with little surprises. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Jan 5 13:01 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7101" "Mon" "5" "January" "1998" "15:56:45" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "152" "Re: Re: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA03260 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 13:01:23 -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 NAA03212 for ; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 13:01:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5290c2b5.34b14910@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: 7100 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, 5 Jan 1998 15:56:45 EST In a message dated 1/3/98 12:56:45 PM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >Hello Kelly, Hi Tim, >>>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 >>carry 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. > >Explorers of the past could haul large amounts too, however it hindered >their progress, often too much to reach their goal. >We may be able to carry enough to fix sophisticated equipment, but it likely >would increase ship weight (and crew) far beyond what would be the minimum >for a succesful mission. Hard to answer without a very detailed analysis of the stuff we'ld be carring, and what we'ld need to keep runing. Rough guess, longer the mission, the less that will be working. However, if its something that is really needed, we'ld be forced to carry every support systems and suplies nessisary to assure we could keep 'it' runing. >>>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. > >Well let me give a simple example then: Say you've two gears, in the past >the quality of steel was rather poor, so they had to be big to have a >reasonable lifetime. Now we can control the strength of steel much better so >can make these gears thinner and smaller and still have the same lifetime. >I'd guess that if we used better steel and kept the same size as in the >past, then we'd really increase lifetime. >Indeed the much larger mass of such a gear may not be acceptable, but if it >means that it will need much less maintenance, thus less crew, thus less >food, thus a smaller habitat, then I wonder if it really is less acceptable. Good trade off case. Thats why I'm assuming the heavy industrial and structural systems would be over built to allow a long enough service life. But then gears and metal components are pretty long lived anyway. Things get much more brittel with high precision systems, especialy things like electronics that arn't normally designed to work for decades. >>>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. > >Well, would todays technology combined with shortlived 2050 technology >really be too crude for an interstellar exploration mission? >(The 2050 equipment would be used until it failed and then the old and >easier to repair technology would be used for further exploration.) Certainly the systems of most concern (computers, electronics, chemical systems, etc..) would be unlikely to benifit from using 50 year old versions. Thou their probably is some way to make custom designs for some systems that would be more durable then their standard 2050 counterpart. >>>>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 power. 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. > >I wasn't comparing with a computer core, but with a chemical propulsion >system (although I could have been more explicit). I believe that according >to Lee todays propulsion systems do have a MTBF long enough for a two-way >mission. >I wondered whether fusion rockets would have similar reliability, since they >likely are more complex than their chemical counterparts. And if our rockets >are pulsed, they may get much more structural stress than chemical rockets >that as far as I know are continuous. Chemicalsd do need to deal with presure and vibration. Hopefully fusion systms would be less erratic, but if not the levels would need to be kept similar or the vibration loads could shake the ship up badly. >Furthermore, while a fusion rocket may not need to turn the heat into >electricity, it still is comparable with a fusion powerplant, since it too >has to control the energy flow. It can't just be compared to a H-bomb, which >can freely expand in all directions and hoped to do as much damage as possible. > >>>>>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.) > >How do these kill people rapidly? I'd expect some authonomous backup systems. Assuming the backup control signals didn't need to feed through the circut that died. ;) >Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Jan 5 13:06 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1308" "Mon" "5" "January" "1998" "15:56:48" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "42" "Re: starship-design: Re: Does a one-way mission need mining?" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA07490 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 13:06:08 -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 NAA07443 for ; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 13:06:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <7c2e7a36.34b14936@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: 1307 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: Does a one-way mission need mining? Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 15:56:48 EST In a message dated 1/3/98 12:58:09 PM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >To Lee and Kelly, > >At the moment I've not much more to add to this subject. The next is about >what I can conclude of the discussions about mining vs. recycling. > >* Manufacturing and refining equipment are always necessary. Probably true, thou different missions would need considerably differnt amounts. >* Mining is only possible during in system stay. True. >* Recycling can be done at any time. >* Some form of recycling equipment has to be on the ship anyhow. >* Recycling combined with storing substances in the shield may make mining > unnecessary. (#) These I have a bit of problem with. Recycling has proven difficult and resource consuptive, and should probably be minimized to save weight and materials. Also its often far easier and less resource consuptive to mine replacement material, then to recycle used. >* Some form of mining equipment has to be on the ship if (#) is impossible. >* Finding relative easy accessable ores may be timeconsuming and specialistic. We should have a good idea of the desired orebearing asteroids before we go on the flight, though we'ld probably need a separte minning team. >* Recycling is relatively constant and with little surprises. Big disagre. >Timothy Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Jan 6 21:39 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1226" "Wed" "7" "January" "1998" "00:09:18" "-0500" "Paul Anderson" "madhobbyist@geeky1.ebtech.net" "" "26" "starship-design: Hello?" "^From:" nil nil "1" "1998010705:09:18" "starship-design: Hello?" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA23677 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jan 1998 21:39:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from bootes.ebtech.net (root@bootes.ebtech.net [206.152.142.12]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA23667 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 1998 21:39:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by bootes.ebtech.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with UUCP id AAA18938 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 00:17:34 -0500 Received: from localhost (madhobbyist@localhost) by geeky1.ebtech.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA14382 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 00:09:19 -0500 Message-ID: X-Idiot: Bill Gates MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Paul Anderson Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1225 From: Paul Anderson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Hello? Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 00:09:18 -0500 (EST) THis seems like a really low traffic list... Anyway, I heard about this list from the administrator of it, and since space vessel design has long been a hobby of mine, I subscribed. My interests include physics, electronics, computers, machining, woodworking... I've been working on designing a heavier than water submarine for a couple months, and I'm stalled somewhat at the fact that I need to perform a few experiments to settle on the superstructure design... In the process of my design, I've been thinking about the psychological effect on the crew of such a ship, has any discussion about the topic been done here? I'd be concerned that doing the same thing, again and again for the rest of one's life would tend to drive people insane. I've been planning on designing in a large variety of recreational activities. Also, has there been much discussion as to using hydrogen for power? What about rotting human waste, siphoning off the resulting methane gas for fuel and using the remainder as feritilizer? TTYL! --- Paul Anderson Hacker, Mad Scientist, Machinist, Publisher, and Author http://www2.ebtech.net/~panderso Owner of the madhobby list, to subscribe e-mail: 2madhobby-request@geeky1.ebtech.net From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Jan 6 21:39 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1226" "Wed" "7" "January" "1998" "00:09:18" "-0500" "Paul Anderson" "madhobbyist@geeky1.ebtech.net" nil "26" "starship-design: Hello?" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA23677 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jan 1998 21:39:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from bootes.ebtech.net (root@bootes.ebtech.net [206.152.142.12]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA23667 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 1998 21:39:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by bootes.ebtech.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with UUCP id AAA18938 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 00:17:34 -0500 Received: from localhost (madhobbyist@localhost) by geeky1.ebtech.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA14382 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 00:09:19 -0500 Message-ID: X-Idiot: Bill Gates MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Paul Anderson Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1225 From: Paul Anderson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Hello? Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 00:09:18 -0500 (EST) THis seems like a really low traffic list... Anyway, I heard about this list from the administrator of it, and since space vessel design has long been a hobby of mine, I subscribed. My interests include physics, electronics, computers, machining, woodworking... I've been working on designing a heavier than water submarine for a couple months, and I'm stalled somewhat at the fact that I need to perform a few experiments to settle on the superstructure design... In the process of my design, I've been thinking about the psychological effect on the crew of such a ship, has any discussion about the topic been done here? I'd be concerned that doing the same thing, again and again for the rest of one's life would tend to drive people insane. I've been planning on designing in a large variety of recreational activities. Also, has there been much discussion as to using hydrogen for power? What about rotting human waste, siphoning off the resulting methane gas for fuel and using the remainder as feritilizer? TTYL! --- Paul Anderson Hacker, Mad Scientist, Machinist, Publisher, and Author http://www2.ebtech.net/~panderso Owner of the madhobby list, to subscribe e-mail: 2madhobby-request@geeky1.ebtech.net From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Jan 7 20:20 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["972" "Thu" "8" "January" "1998" "01:36:47" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "23" "RE: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA24739 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 20:20:36 -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 UAA24729 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 20:20:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-018.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xq60s-001WECC; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 01:39:58 +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: 971 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, 08 Jan 1998 01:36:47 +0100 Lee wrote: >> Hmm, I didn't think of comparing a bomb to a starship exhaust. While I've >> heard of designs that actually propose exploding an H-bomb behind the >> ship, >> I didn't think we'd do it that litterally. It surely would ask a lot more >> of structural enhancing. >> For a more graduate flight, you'd need a little bit more control than a >> bomb. My guess is that the kind of control and savety is comparable to >> that of a fusion powerplant. (Afterall we are talking about power outputs >> several order bigger than we are used to from ordinary power plants.) > >As far as I know, the ONLY current designs with sufficient ISP are >derivatives of Orion. The more derived they are, the more complicated they get. Are Orion or any of its current derivatives usable to get us towards several tenths of c? Still the firing rates for these engines are quite low. If they don't rattle the ship to pieces, they are likely going to make the crew very sick. Tim From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Jan 8 09:36 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1211" "Thu" "8" "January" "1998" "12:33:47" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "28" "Re: RE: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA00103 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 09:36:26 -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 JAA00070 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 09:36:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <12aaa2c2.34b50e02@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: 1210 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: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 12:33:47 EST In a message dated 1/7/98 10:24:22 PM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >Lee wrote: > >>> Hmm, I didn't think of comparing a bomb to a starship exhaust. While I've >>> heard of designs that actually propose exploding an H-bomb behind the >>> ship, >>> I didn't think we'd do it that litterally. It surely would ask a lot more >>> of structural enhancing. >>> For a more graduate flight, you'd need a little bit more control than a >>> bomb. My guess is that the kind of control and savety is comparable to >>> that of a fusion powerplant. (Afterall we are talking about power outputs >>> several order bigger than we are used to from ordinary power plants.) >> >>As far as I know, the ONLY current designs with sufficient ISP are >>derivatives of Orion. > >The more derived they are, the more complicated they get. Are Orion or any >of its current derivatives usable to get us towards several tenths of c? >Still the firing rates for these engines are quite low. If they don't rattle >the ship to pieces, they are likely going to make the crew very sick. The pulse fusion systems generally work at a couple hundred cycles per secound. Magnetic/electrostatic confinment systems are more steedy flow. >Tim From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Jan 8 11:33 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2435" "Thu" "8" "January" "1998" "14:28:56" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "64" "RE: starship-design: Hello?" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA08035 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 11:33:48 -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 LAA07965 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 11:33:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 14:28:58 -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: 2434 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Hello? Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 14:28:56 -0500 Hi, Paul, welcome aboard. Yes, the list traffic goes in spurts - a long period of quiet followed by intense sets of 20-30 emails per day. Most people here also have periods when they're terribly busy. Early on there were five lists, one for each part of the starship design - one of the lists was devoted to human issues. Check out: http://sunsite.unc.edu/lunar/school/InterStellar/newslets/projarc.html Way at the bottom of the list (weeks 1-10) you'll find the "Human Factors and Crew Selection" archives. Uh oh. I just tried it and the links are dead. I'll see if I can find the newsletters and upload them. I'll let you guys know when it's there. D'oh! ------------------------------------------------------ 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: Paul Anderson[SMTP:madhobbyist@geeky1.ebtech.net] > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 12:09 AM > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: starship-design: Hello? > > THis seems like a really low traffic list... Anyway, I heard about > this > list from the administrator of it, and since space vessel design has > long > been a hobby of mine, I subscribed. My interests include physics, > electronics, computers, machining, woodworking... I've been working > on > designing a heavier than water submarine for a couple months, and I'm > stalled somewhat at the fact that I need to perform a few experiments > to > settle on the superstructure design... In the process of my design, > I've > been thinking about the psychological effect on the crew of such a > ship, > has any discussion about the topic been done here? I'd be concerned > that > doing the same thing, again and again for the rest of one's life would > tend to drive people insane. I've been planning on designing in a > large > variety of recreational activities. Also, has there been much > discussion > as to using hydrogen for power? What about rotting human waste, > siphoning > off the resulting methane gas for fuel and using the remainder as > feritilizer? TTYL! > > > > --- > Paul Anderson > Hacker, Mad Scientist, Machinist, Publisher, and Author > http://www2.ebtech.net/~panderso > Owner of the madhobby list, to subscribe e-mail: > 2madhobby-request@geeky1.ebtech.net > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 9 14:09 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3252" "Fri" "9" "January" "1998" "17:09:21" "-0500" "Mike Cross" "mikec@cyberportal.net" nil "54" "starship-design: stuff" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA02753 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 14:09:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyberport.cyberportal.net (mikec@cyberport.cyberportal.net [204.97.234.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA02739 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 14:09:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (mikec@localhost) by cyberport.cyberportal.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA14079 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 17:09:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Mike Cross Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3251 From: Mike Cross Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: stuff Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 17:09:21 -0500 (EST) Hi, my name is Mike Cross and I am new to this list. It looks neato. I read an article in the paper today, and it made me a little sad, actually. It said that scientists are almost 95% sure that the universe will not have enough gravity to overcome its outward motion. I was sitting in my little high school american experience class today, when I read it, and after that the girl who sits in back of me asked me why I was making a peculiar face. I told her that we didnt have enough mass for the universe to suck itself back in, that it would continue expanding forever. She thought that was great. "Well, then, life will continue on forever then, right?" I told her that I didnt think so. OK, from here on, I'm not sure of anything that I say, but I assume this stuff to be true. Please correct me when I say something wrong. Anyways, I told her that everything would pretty much decompose into particles after enough time had passed, and that would kinda be it. If the universe were standing still, not expanding or contrating, and you had an electron on both ends of it, and nothing else, the gravity between these two electrons would draw them together, right? Well, I told her that we pretty much wouldnt slow down enough to ever stop. She thought I was full of it. Then our conversation went off on a different tangent. We started talking about other cosmic things. After a short argument on like, the human soul and stuff like that, we got into time travel.. I really eat this stuff up, and I just love it when people talk about it. I dont understand any of the concepts, really, but I like to think that I get the conceptual idea.. I have this friend who is an engineeing major at the university, a freshman. We're both kinda arrogant but we admit we're wrong. Not about the social life, but we do when it comes to star stuff. A recent conversation involved time travel, like today. He told me that you could actually go back in time? Is this true? His story went something like this: "Well, if you had a huge cylinder, of almost infinite length, and really, really dense, and spinning, really, really fast, then somehow going near it will shoot you back in time." I know that you're thinking, "Wow, what a bunch of stupid kids." And, well.. we are. That's why I'm kinda thinking that this list will be pretty cool when one of these 'swells' of heavy mailing happens. Another concept was that "if you can get above c, then you can go any speed above it. But you have just as hard a time stopping as you did getting there." Which would kinda make the warp drive star trek stuff kinda weirded out and inaccurate, huh. Does any of that make sense? So this list is devoted to starship design. That's just so cool, you know. Are there any standing goals or anything that the list is shooting for? Nearest star by 2000 and something? Cool. Well, thanks for letting a newbie having the post of today... ______________________________________________________________ webmassa@phatboys.com * Mike Cross * Minister of Propaganda "If you can't convince them, confuse them." -Harry S Truman Mundus vult decipi, ergo decepiatur. Frontis nulla fides. -------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 9 15:35 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1701" "Sat" "10" "January" "1998" "00:35:09" "+0100" "Christoph Kulmann" "kulmann@zfn.uni-bremen.de" nil "36" "Re: starship-design: stuff" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA14782 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 15:35:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de (alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.20.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA14772 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 15:35:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/ZFNserver) id AA51729; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 00:35:09 +0100 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Christoph Kulmann Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1700 From: Christoph Kulmann Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Mike Cross Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: stuff Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 00:35:09 +0100 (NFT) Hi Mike, It's me again. So, you think about time... Here is something about time - from a biologist's point of view. I know that most physicians would hang me for what I say now, but time itself seems to be an invention of our brains. As you know, there is no absolute time in the universe - Relativity and so on. But even on this very planet, time doesn't have to flow at the same speed everywhere. It doesn't matter if an animal lives only a day or a hundred years - they all have their own personal feeling of time. In a small flee, all biological processes run much faster than a human body - but the flee would feel the same amount of absolute time as we do during our whole live. All this is controlled by several "clocks" inside our brains. If you destroy these clocks, an organism would live without even the very FEELING of time - it would live in a permanent PRESENT. And there is even the opposite case: rats with an overdose of "clock" hormons speed up their entire lives - eating, sleeping, biting... they even die earlier (of old age...). So as to my opinion, you should be very careful with any concept of physical time, because everything we feel, everything we measure, is actually censored by our brain to make things as simple as possible - and believe me, this organ inside our head is cheating us a great deal... By the way, there actually is an experiment involving transmission beyond the speed of light. This was done in 1991 by Dr. Guenter Nimtz in Koeln/Germany. In short, the weird quantum habit of tunneling through an otherwise uncrossable barrier allowed information to be transmitted at 4.7c. So nothing is really impossible in this world... From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 9 15:40 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1294" "Fri" "9" "January" "1998" "18:40:04" "-0500" "Mike Cross" "mikec@cyberportal.net" nil "28" "Re: starship-design: stuff" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA16816 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 15:40:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyberport.cyberportal.net (mikec@cyberport.cyberportal.net [204.97.234.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA16804 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 15:40:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (mikec@localhost) by cyberport.cyberportal.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA24945 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 18:40:04 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Mike Cross Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1293 From: Mike Cross Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: stuff Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 18:40:04 -0500 (EST) Hmm... that sounds cool. But wouldnt time seem seamless for a civilization that was doing that? It's kinda like that problem where the guy said he couldnt walk across the dance floor to his girlfriend cause he would have to walk half the distance, then half of that, and then half of that... he would never get there. But he never stops moving. That is interesting. Obviously that assumes that the equipment used to start and stop the processes would be almost perfect, or else there would be an end to us. right? If it was perfect, then we would kinda go on forever, huh? It wouldnt be much fun though, I bet.. Also. I'm not sure about this one. Is it true that everything has a halflife when it comes down to it, and that everything will break down? If that was true, then it might pose a problem too... I mean, a block of rock floating in space will decay, right? Or a hydrogen atom.. will it not decompose into protons and electrons? Still, it's a cool idea! ______________________________________________________________ webmassa@phatboys.com * Mike Cross * Minister of Propaganda "If you can't convince them, confuse them." -Harry S Truman Mundus vult decipi, ergo decepiatur. Frontis nulla fides. -------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 9 15:49 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["841" "Fri" "9" "January" "1998" "18:49:16" "-0500" "Mike Cross" "mikec@cyberportal.net" nil "17" "Re: starship-design: stuff" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA21645 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 15:49:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyberport.cyberportal.net (mikec@cyberport.cyberportal.net [204.97.234.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA21626 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 15:49:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (mikec@localhost) by cyberport.cyberportal.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA25996; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 18:49:17 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Mike Cross Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 840 From: Mike Cross Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Christoph Kulmann cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: stuff Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 18:49:16 -0500 (EST) Hmm. Time. It bugs us all, huh?! 4.7 c? That sounds neat. My friend told me that much of the matter in the universe might very well be going faster than c, making it harder for us to detect it, and that there might be more mass than we thought. He said that like maybe 99% if the universe is neutrinos flying around, though us, all the time, everywhere. I dont think I spelled neutrinos right, either. Hmm. Are there any plans online for a spaceship that people have been working on? I'm going to guess thats a big yes. ______________________________________________________________ webmassa@phatboys.com * Mike Cross * Minister of Propaganda "If you can't convince them, confuse them." -Harry S Truman Mundus vult decipi, ergo decepiatur. Frontis nulla fides. -------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 9 15:56 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2007" "Sat" "10" "January" "1998" "00:55:24" "+0100" "Christoph Kulmann" "kulmann@zfn.uni-bremen.de" nil "48" "Re: starship-design: stuff" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA24999 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 15:56:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de (alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.20.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA24985 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 15:56:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/ZFNserver) id AA31249; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 00:55:25 +0100 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Christoph Kulmann Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2006 From: Christoph Kulmann Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Mike Cross Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: stuff Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 00:55:24 +0100 (NFT) Yes, you are right. The equipment must be perfect, and as every engineer would tell you, this is physically impossible. So we could only survive (eternity minus 1 week...) On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Mike Cross wrote: > Hmm... that sounds cool. But wouldnt time seem seamless for a civilization > that was doing that? It's kinda like that problem where the guy said he > couldnt walk across the dance floor to his girlfriend cause he would have to > walk half the distance, then half of that, and then half of that... he would > never get there. But he never stops moving. That is interesting. Obviously > that assumes that the equipment used to start and stop the processes would be > almost perfect, or else there would be an end to us. right? If it was > perfect, then we would kinda go on forever, huh? It wouldnt be much fun > though, I bet.. > --------------------------------------------------- > Also. Yes, every decay process has a half live. Do you know the three laws of thermodynamics? 1. You cannot win. 2. You cannot break even. 3. You cannot get out of the game............... (It's a bad game, I know...) But about proton decay? This has still to be found... But even if protons don't decay, there are other quantum processes eating up normal matter... it only takes MUCH longer. > I'm not sure about this one. Is it true that everything has a halflife when > it comes down to it, and that everything will break down? If that was true, > then it might pose a problem too... I mean, a block of rock floating in space > will decay, right? Or a hydrogen atom.. will it not decompose into protons > and electrons? > > > Still, it's a cool idea! > > ______________________________________________________________ > webmassa@phatboys.com * Mike Cross * Minister of Propaganda > "If you can't convince them, confuse them." -Harry S Truman > Mundus vult decipi, ergo decepiatur. Frontis nulla fides. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 9 16:03 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["654" "Fri" "9" "January" "1998" "19:03:35" "-0500" "Mike Cross" "mikec@cyberportal.net" nil "17" "Re: starship-design: stuff" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA28510 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 16:03:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyberport.cyberportal.net (mikec@cyberport.cyberportal.net [204.97.234.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA28500 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 16:03:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (mikec@localhost) by cyberport.cyberportal.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA27654; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 19:03:36 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Mike Cross Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 653 From: Mike Cross Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Christoph Kulmann cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: stuff Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 19:03:35 -0500 (EST) ug. watching that little meter telling you how much of that week left would pretty much bring back the fear of death... as you approach c, time slows. right? if you break it, do you go backwards? that's at least how I've been living my life up to this point. if you go c exactly, does time stop? (Duh, reletively speaking, of course.) ______________________________________________________________ webmassa@phatboys.com * Mike Cross * Minister of Propaganda "If you can't convince them, confuse them." -Harry S Truman Mundus vult decipi, ergo decepiatur. Frontis nulla fides. -------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 9 16:18 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1048" "Fri" "9" "January" "1998" "23:50:16" "+0100" "Christoph Kulmann" "kulmann@zfn.uni-bremen.de" nil "26" "Re: starship-design: stuff" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA05638 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 16:18:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de (alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.20.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA24356 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 14:51:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/ZFNserver) id AA52791; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 23:50:18 +0100 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Christoph Kulmann Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1047 From: Christoph Kulmann Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Mike Cross Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: stuff Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 23:50:16 +0100 (NFT) Re: Never-ending Universe Hi Mike, That's quite an interesting mail. I've got good news for you. Don't be worried about an ever expanding universe, their are some weird physical tricks to get around it... As Freeman Dyson points out in his book "Time without End", it is possible (at least in principle) for any civilization to survive FOREVER - even when the rest of the universe is cooling down to absolute zero. The trick is a kind of hibernation - not just sleep, but complete suspension of all technical and biological processes - so no energy is spent, and we wouldn't even recognize it... If an entire civilization is subjected to an alternating cycle of awakeness and hibernation (while the hibernation phases get LONGER each time), it can survive an INFINITE time - whith a FINITE energy reserve. According to Dyson, this trick would allow our present civilization to persist ETERNALLY - and it would only need the energy the Sun produces during EIGHT HOURS! So it's up to you now to build a global scale refrigerator.... From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 9 16:21 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1179" "Sat" "10" "January" "1998" "01:20:53" "+0100" "Christoph Kulmann" "kulmann@zfn.uni-bremen.de" nil "32" "Re: starship-design: stuff" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA06646 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 16:21:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de (alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.20.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA06638 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 16:21:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/ZFNserver) id AA31463; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 01:20:54 +0100 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Christoph Kulmann Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1178 From: Christoph Kulmann Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Mike Cross Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: stuff Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 01:20:53 +0100 (NFT) Ha, I cought you! YES, time slows down as you approach c, and AT c it stops! That's why a photon never ages. It can cross a billion lightyears in one moment (from the photon's point of view). But as time stops at c, you cannot get beyond it!! Every process on board a spaceship would be frozen until the end of all time. No further acceleration, no coffee dropping to the floor.... So it's meaningless if time reverses beyond c, because from our point of live we can never reach beyond... (but as far as I remember, time does NOT go back; it's a bit difficult here) On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Mike Cross wrote: > as you approach c, time slows. right? > > if you break it, do you go backwards? that's at least how I've been living my > life up to this point. > > if you go c exactly, does time stop? (Duh, reletively speaking, of course.) > > ______________________________________________________________ > webmassa@phatboys.com * Mike Cross * Minister of Propaganda > "If you can't convince them, confuse them." -Harry S Truman > Mundus vult decipi, ergo decepiatur. Frontis nulla fides. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 9 16:46 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1650" "Sat" "10" "January" "1998" "01:45:28" "+0100" "Christoph Kulmann" "kulmann@zfn.uni-bremen.de" nil "36" "Re: starship-design: stuff" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA15504 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 16:46:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de (alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.20.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA15477 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 16:46:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/ZFNserver) id AA55852; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 01:45:29 +0100 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Christoph Kulmann Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1649 From: Christoph Kulmann Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Mike Cross Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: stuff Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 01:45:28 +0100 (NFT) Well, I don't think that any kind of matter today is actually moving beyond c. The "missing mass", as it is called, should be accounted for by more "ordinary" forms of matter. This means it doesn't have to be really exotic; it's just so faint that we cannot see it at vast galactic distances (remember: a star like our sun would be completely invisible at the distance of the Andromeda Galaxy; and most stars are much smaller...). All right, there are a lot of neutrinos around, but as the data from SN1987A suggests are they too lightweight to account for all of the Dark Matter. So there must be something different (non-baryonic??) matter around. (it would be helpful if some astronomer could hang in at this point...) On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Mike Cross wrote: > Hmm. Time. It bugs us all, huh?! 4.7 c? That sounds neat. My friend told > me that much of the matter in the universe might very well be going faster > than c, making it harder for us to detect it, and that there might be more > mass than we thought. He said that like maybe 99% if the universe is > neutrinos flying around, though us, all the time, everywhere. I dont think I > spelled neutrinos right, either. Hmm. > > Are there any plans online for a spaceship that people have been working on? > I'm going to guess thats a big yes. > > ______________________________________________________________ > webmassa@phatboys.com * Mike Cross * Minister of Propaganda > "If you can't convince them, confuse them." -Harry S Truman > Mundus vult decipi, ergo decepiatur. Frontis nulla fides. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 9 18:49 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["878" "Fri" "9" "January" "1998" "20:40:51" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "23" "RE: starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA21200 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 18:49:15 -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 SAA21191 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 18:49:12 -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 UAA23555; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:49:07 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:49:02 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD1D40.04590FE0.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: 877 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, 9 Jan 1998 20:40:51 -0600 On Wednesday, January 07, 1998 6:37 PM, Timothy van der Linden [SMTP:TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl] wrote: > Lee wrote: > > The more derived they are, the more complicated they get. Well, yes and no. The current candidate is not really all that complicated. Basically, just a pellet injector and a bunch of ion accelerators. > Are Orion or any > of its current derivatives usable to get us towards several tenths of c? > Still the firing rates for these engines are quite low. If they don't > rattle > the ship to pieces, they are likely going to make the crew very sick. The current generation actually explodes several pellets a second which should improve the vibration. If you couple that with several engines out of phase with each other, the ride might actually be pretty smooth. And yes, it is capable of well over .3 c if it was scaled up to several engines. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 9 20:40 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1833" "Fri" "9" "January" "1998" "23:08:44" "-0500" "Paul Anderson" "madhobbyist@geeky1.ebtech.net" nil "44" "Re: starship-design: stuff" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11201 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:40:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from bootes.ebtech.net (root@bootes.ebtech.net [206.152.142.12]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11182 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:40:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by bootes.ebtech.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with UUCP id XAA25351; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 23:35:31 -0500 Received: from localhost (madhobbyist@localhost) by geeky1.ebtech.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA11896; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 23:08:47 -0500 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-Idiot: Bill Gates MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Paul Anderson Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1832 From: Paul Anderson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Mike Cross cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: stuff Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 23:08:44 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Mike Cross wrote: > Hi, my name is Mike Cross and I am new to this list. It looks neato. > > I read an article in the paper today, and it made me a little sad, actually. > It said that scientists are almost 95% sure that the universe will not have > enough gravity to overcome its outward motion. > Well, if you want my personal opinion, people where once 100% CERTAIN that wood contained fire, then they where 100% CERTAIN the earth was flat, then 100% CERTAIN that mechanical flight was imposible... Anyways, the issue has SIGNIFICANTLY minute relevance to us. > > Another concept was that "if you can get above c, then you can go any speed > above it. But you have just as hard a time stopping as you did getting > there." Which would kinda make the warp drive star trek stuff kinda weirded > out and inaccurate, huh. Does any of that make sense? > Well, IIRC, einstein theorized that to go FASTER than light would require an infinite amount of energy, and so would slowing below the speed of light. IMHO, the goal isn't to really go fast at all, it's to get from point A to point C, without intersecting point B between A and C. I'm an advocate of wormholes, if one knew how to manipulate spacetime, you could travel at a speed far less than light, and still travel massive distances in seconds. > So this list is devoted to starship design. That's just so cool, you know. > Are there any standing goals or anything that the list is shooting for? > Nearest star by 2000 and something? Cool. Well, thanks for letting a newbie > having the post of today... > I beleive Tau Ceti by 2050. TTYL! --- Paul Anderson Hacker, Mad Scientist, Machinist, Publisher, and Author http://www2.ebtech.net/~panderso Owner of the madhobby list, to subscribe e-mail: 2madhobby-request@geeky1.ebtech.net From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 9 20:41 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["711" "Fri" "9" "January" "1998" "23:14:56" "-0500" "Paul Anderson" "madhobbyist@geeky1.ebtech.net" nil "24" "Re: starship-design: stuff" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11386 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:41:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from bootes.ebtech.net (root@bootes.ebtech.net [206.152.142.12]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11373 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:41:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by bootes.ebtech.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with UUCP id XAA25352; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 23:35:32 -0500 Received: from localhost (madhobbyist@localhost) by geeky1.ebtech.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA12046; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 23:14:58 -0500 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-Idiot: Bill Gates MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Paul Anderson Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 710 From: Paul Anderson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Christoph Kulmann cc: Mike Cross , starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: stuff Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 23:14:56 -0500 (EST) On Sat, 10 Jan 1998, Christoph Kulmann wrote: > > YES, time slows down as you approach c, and AT c it stops! > Consider: You can halve 1 an inifite number of times, and NEVER reach 0. I don't think time REALLY stops at c, I think it just gets slower and slower, until it's proceeding at an infinitesimal rate. NOTE: I may be full of pure BS, I'm (unfortunately) just an arm-chair physicist, and know very little about relativity. Please feel free to prove me wrong and elaborate as much as you want:) TTYL! --- Paul Anderson Hacker, Mad Scientist, Machinist, Publisher, and Author http://www2.ebtech.net/~panderso Owner of the madhobby list, to subscribe e-mail: 2madhobby-request@geeky1.ebtech.net From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 9 20:41 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1148" "Fri" "9" "January" "1998" "23:22:42" "-0500" "Paul Anderson" "madhobbyist@geeky1.ebtech.net" nil "28" "Re: starship-design: stuff" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11444 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:41:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from bootes.ebtech.net (root@bootes.ebtech.net [206.152.142.12]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11437 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:41:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by bootes.ebtech.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with UUCP id XAA25370; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 23:36:25 -0500 Received: from localhost (madhobbyist@localhost) by geeky1.ebtech.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA12211; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 23:22:43 -0500 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-Idiot: Bill Gates MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Paul Anderson Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1147 From: Paul Anderson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Christoph Kulmann cc: Mike Cross , starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: stuff Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 23:22:42 -0500 (EST) On Sat, 10 Jan 1998, Christoph Kulmann wrote: > > All this is controlled by several "clocks" inside our brains. If you > destroy these clocks, an organism would live without even the very > FEELING of time - it would live in a permanent PRESENT. > I beleive that the bodies processes are governed by when they must be done(i.e. you only breathe when you need more air, your heart only beats when body parts require more blood, etc.). However, I do intend to perform an experiment to confirm or deny my theories. I propose locking a person, alone, in a room for a day. This room would be very plain, empty of any furniture except a chair and table, and there would be a large clock on the wall. The clock would be slowed so that 1 of it's seconds would pass for every two outside. If a person where in such a situation, it would be easy for them to adjust and perceive time at a slower rate. It would be a most interesting experiment. TTYL! --- Paul Anderson Hacker, Mad Scientist, Machinist, Publisher, and Author http://www2.ebtech.net/~panderso Owner of the madhobby list, to subscribe e-mail: 2madhobby-request@geeky1.ebtech.net From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 9 20:59 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1375" "Fri" "9" "January" "1998" "20:58:51" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "29" "Re: starship-design: stuff" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA13707 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:59:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (hexadecimal.uoregon.edu [128.223.32.56]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA13701 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:59:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA15338 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:59:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA18824; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:58:51 -0800 Message-Id: <199801100458.UAA18824@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.37 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1374 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: stuff Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:58:51 -0800 Paul Anderson writes: > Well, IIRC, einstein theorized that to go FASTER than light would require > an infinite amount of energy, No. As the velocity of an object with mass approaches c, its energy increases without limit. There is no physically consistent interpretation of the physical properties of an object that moves faster than c. Before you new subscribers begin rehashing arguments that we're already deeply tired of, PLEASE read the archives at ftp://ftp.efn.org/pub/users/stevev/starship-design/. For those of you without a precise understanding of relativity theory, I suggest _Spacetime Physics_, 2nd ed., by Taylor and Wheeler as an excellent introductory text. A succinct summary: The purpose of this list is to consider the _engineering_ design of a craft that can reach Tau Ceti (approximately 10 lyr away) carrying human explorers, to be launched in 2050. Because there is no current physical theory, let alone engineering knowledge, that would allow for faster-than-light propulsion, we are not considering designs that involve any sort of faster-than-light travel. If you think you can come up with such a design, first you need a widely accepted physical theory that would allow faster-than-light travel, such that the properties of a faster-than-light propulsion system could be extrapolated with enough detail to make an engineering design. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 9 21:09 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1036" "Fri" "9" "January" "1998" "21:09:12" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "25" "Re: starship-design: stuff" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA16395 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 21:09:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (hexadecimal.uoregon.edu [128.223.32.56]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA16389 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 21:09:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA25958 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 21:09:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA18864; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 21:09:12 -0800 Message-Id: <199801100509.VAA18864@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.37 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1035 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: stuff Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 21:09:12 -0800 Paul Anderson writes: > On Sat, 10 Jan 1998, Christoph Kulmann wrote: > > YES, time slows down as you approach c, and AT c it stops! > Consider: You can halve 1 an inifite number of times, and NEVER reach 0. > I don't think time REALLY stops at c, I think it just gets slower and > slower, until it's proceeding at an infinitesimal rate. This is again not a correct description of relativistic time effects. Relativistic time dilation is a difference in the measured rate of time lapse between two observers in relative motion. Each observer considers his own clocks to lapse at the rate of one second per second; there is no subjective effect that causes the observers to feel that their rate of time lapse is changing. However, when the two observers compare clock rates, one observer, in one of his clock's seconds, will see the other's clock tick off only sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) seconds, where v is the relative velocity of the two observers and c is the speed of light. Again, this is all explained in _Spacetime Physics_. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 10 08:05 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2552" "Sat" "10" "January" "1998" "11:05:52" "-0500" "Ward R. Goodwin Jr." "wardish@mtinter.net" nil "56" "Re: starship-design: stuff" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA23343 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 08:04:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.mtinter.net (root@mountain-internet.Washington.mci.net [204.70.58.30]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA23337 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 08:04:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from castle-top (Goblin-30.mtinter.net [205.216.42.40]) by ns.mtinter.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA24013 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 11:04:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.4.32.19980110110552.006b28f4@pop.mtinter.net> X-Sender: wardish@pop.mtinter.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Plus Version 3.0.4 (32) with Spelling Checker Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ward R. Goodwin Jr." Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2551 From: "Ward R. Goodwin Jr." Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: Re: starship-design: stuff Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 11:05:52 -0500 >Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 10:40:54 -0500 >To: Paul Anderson >From: "Ward R. Goodwin Jr." >Subject: Re: starship-design: stuff >In-Reply-To: >References: > >I believe there was research that showed humans without external time references tended toward a 26 hour day. I recall some of the "humans didn't originate on earth" used this as a basis for some of their arguments. > >You can of course make of it what you will. > >Ward > >At 11:22 PM 1/9/98 -0500, you wrote: >>On Sat, 10 Jan 1998, Christoph Kulmann wrote: >> >>> >>> All this is controlled by several "clocks" inside our brains. If you >>> destroy these clocks, an organism would live without even the very >>> FEELING of time - it would live in a permanent PRESENT. >>> >>I beleive that the bodies processes are governed by when they must be >>done(i.e. you only breathe when you need more air, your heart only beats >>when body parts require more blood, etc.). However, I do intend to >>perform an experiment to confirm or deny my theories. I propose locking a >>person, alone, in a room for a day. This room would be very plain, empty >>of any furniture except a chair and table, and there would be a large >>clock on the wall. The clock would be slowed so that 1 of it's seconds >>would pass for every two outside. If a person where in such a situation, >>it would be easy for them to adjust and perceive time at a slower rate. >>It would be a most interesting experiment. TTYL! >> >> >> >>--- >>Paul Anderson >>Hacker, Mad Scientist, Machinist, Publisher, and Author >>http://www2.ebtech.net/~panderso >>Owner of the madhobby list, to subscribe e-mail: >>2madhobby-request@geeky1.ebtech.net >> >> >> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ward R. Goodwin Jr. Goodwin Consulting wardish@mtinter.net Head Ego P.O. Box 364 wardish@netscope.net Voice - (540) 935-4141 Oakwood, VA 24614 Fax - (540) 498-3792 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Meddle not in my affairs! Forget not that thee are mortal, and taste well with sauce... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Opinions expressed here cast no reflections... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 10 08:05 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2418" "Sat" "10" "January" "1998" "11:05:59" "-0500" "Ward R. Goodwin Jr." "wardish@mtinter.net" nil "59" "Re: starship-design: stuff" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA23389 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 08:05:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.mtinter.net (root@mountain-internet.Washington.mci.net [204.70.58.30]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA23349 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 08:05:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from castle-top (Goblin-30.mtinter.net [205.216.42.40]) by ns.mtinter.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA24018 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 11:04:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.4.32.19980110110559.006b3830@pop.mtinter.net> X-Sender: wardish@pop.mtinter.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Plus Version 3.0.4 (32) with Spelling Checker Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ward R. Goodwin Jr." Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2417 From: "Ward R. Goodwin Jr." Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: Re: starship-design: stuff Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 11:05:59 -0500 >Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 10:50:54 -0500 >To: Paul Anderson >From: "Ward R. Goodwin Jr." >Subject: Re: starship-design: stuff >In-Reply-To: >References: > >Interesting thought. > >Let's examine the universe from the perspective of a photon... > It's traveling at the speed of light (duh) > Time stands still at the speed of light. > From that perspective the universe is composed of a finite (the number of photon's that ever have/will exist) number of snapshots. > There is no movement ever. It's strictly an illusion. > >In movies there is a concept called "persistence of vision" that really makes 30 frames per second look like seamless motion and perhaps "time" is the universal equivalent of this... > >Nice concept eh.... > >At 11:14 PM 1/9/98 -0500, you wrote: >>On Sat, 10 Jan 1998, Christoph Kulmann wrote: >> >>> >>> YES, time slows down as you approach c, and AT c it stops! >>> >>Consider: You can halve 1 an inifite number of times, and NEVER reach 0. >>I don't think time REALLY stops at c, I think it just gets slower and >>slower, until it's proceeding at an infinitesimal rate. >> >>NOTE: I may be full of pure BS, I'm (unfortunately) just an arm-chair >>physicist, and know very little about relativity. Please feel free to >>prove me wrong and elaborate as much as you want:) TTYL! >> >> >> >> >>--- >>Paul Anderson >>Hacker, Mad Scientist, Machinist, Publisher, and Author >>http://www2.ebtech.net/~panderso >>Owner of the madhobby list, to subscribe e-mail: >>2madhobby-request@geeky1.ebtech.net >> >> >> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ward R. Goodwin Jr. Goodwin Consulting wardish@mtinter.net Head Ego P.O. Box 364 wardish@netscope.net Voice - (540) 935-4141 Oakwood, VA 24614 Fax - (540) 498-3792 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Meddle not in my affairs! Forget not that thee are mortal, and taste well with sauce... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Opinions expressed here cast no reflections... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 10 08:05 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2927" "Sat" "10" "January" "1998" "11:06:18" "-0500" "Ward R. Goodwin Jr." "wardish@mtinter.net" nil "62" "Re: starship-design: stuff" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA23427 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 08:05:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.mtinter.net (root@mountain-internet.Washington.mci.net [204.70.58.30]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA23422 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 08:05:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from castle-top (Goblin-30.mtinter.net [205.216.42.40]) by ns.mtinter.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA24028 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 11:05:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.4.32.19980110110618.006b3f20@pop.mtinter.net> X-Sender: wardish@pop.mtinter.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Plus Version 3.0.4 (32) with Spelling Checker Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ward R. Goodwin Jr." Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2926 From: "Ward R. Goodwin Jr." Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: Re: starship-design: stuff Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 11:06:18 -0500 >Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 11:02:35 -0500 >To: Steve VanDevender >From: "Ward R. Goodwin Jr." >Subject: Re: starship-design: stuff >In-Reply-To: <199801100458.UAA18824@tzadkiel.efn.org> >References: > >That proposes an interesting question. > >Is there any real difference between energy and mass? > As an object approaches c the mass approaches infinity. > Is this because the kinetic energy is the same as mass? > >My understanding of these states is at best limited... Please correct me if and when necessary... > >Ward > >At 08:58 PM 1/9/98 -0800, you wrote: >>Paul Anderson writes: >> > Well, IIRC, einstein theorized that to go FASTER than light would require >> > an infinite amount of energy, >> >>No. As the velocity of an object with mass approaches c, its >>energy increases without limit. There is no physically >>consistent interpretation of the physical properties of an object >>that moves faster than c. >> >>Before you new subscribers begin rehashing arguments that we're >>already deeply tired of, PLEASE read the archives at >>ftp://ftp.efn.org/pub/users/stevev/starship-design/. For those >>of you without a precise understanding of relativity theory, I >>suggest _Spacetime Physics_, 2nd ed., by Taylor and Wheeler as an >>excellent introductory text. >> >>A succinct summary: The purpose of this list is to consider the >>_engineering_ design of a craft that can reach Tau Ceti >>(approximately 10 lyr away) carrying human explorers, to be >>launched in 2050. Because there is no current physical theory, >>let alone engineering knowledge, that would allow for >>faster-than-light propulsion, we are not considering designs that >>involve any sort of faster-than-light travel. If you think you >>can come up with such a design, first you need a widely accepted >>physical theory that would allow faster-than-light travel, such >>that the properties of a faster-than-light propulsion system >>could be extrapolated with enough detail to make an engineering >>design. >> >> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ward R. Goodwin Jr. Goodwin Consulting wardish@mtinter.net Head Ego P.O. Box 364 wardish@netscope.net Voice - (540) 935-4141 Oakwood, VA 24614 Fax - (540) 498-3792 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Meddle not in my affairs! Forget not that thee are mortal, and taste well with sauce... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Opinions expressed here cast no reflections... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 10 08:08 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1045" "Sat" "10" "January" "1998" "11:09:35" "-0500" "Ward R. Goodwin Jr." "wardish@mtinter.net" nil "22" "starship-design: I'm New to the list." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA23717 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 08:08:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.mtinter.net (root@mountain-internet.Washington.mci.net [204.70.58.30]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA23711 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 08:08:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from castle-top (Goblin-30.mtinter.net [205.216.42.40]) by ns.mtinter.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA24081 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 11:08:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.4.32.19980110110935.006b3f20@pop.mtinter.net> X-Sender: wardish@pop.mtinter.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Plus Version 3.0.4 (32) with Spelling Checker Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ward R. Goodwin Jr." Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1044 From: "Ward R. Goodwin Jr." Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: I'm New to the list. Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 11:09:35 -0500 I'm new here. Is there a FAQ so I can get up to speed? My apologies for my replies. I inadvertently replied to the individual only and had to go back and forward my replies to the list. (which had the effect of quoting myself) I am looking forward to being an active member of this list as the subject has interested me for decades. Ward =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ward R. Goodwin Jr. Goodwin Consulting wardish@mtinter.net Head Ego P.O. Box 364 wardish@netscope.net Voice - (540) 935-4141 Oakwood, VA 24614 Fax - (540) 498-3792 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Meddle not in my affairs! Forget not that thee are mortal, and taste well with sauce... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Opinions expressed here cast no reflections... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 10 10:18 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2001" "Sat" "10" "January" "1998" "12:16:32" "-0600" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "24" "starship-design: Time, Relativity, FTL, etc." "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA09580 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 10:18:03 -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 KAA09573 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 10:18:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from pm3-130.gpt.infi.net (pm3-130.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.130]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA13747 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 13:17:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by pm3-130.gpt.infi.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD1DC1.972945C0@pm3-130.gpt.infi.net>; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 12:16:33 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD1DC1.972945C0@pm3-130.gpt.infi.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id KAA09575 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 2000 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: starship-design: Time, Relativity, FTL, etc. Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 12:16:32 -0600 I'll be hung for this, nevertheless: One must be extremely careful when examining such issues as time and Faster-than-Light travel. Three possibilities exist, I am a supporter of the last: A. Time exists in one manifestation: Relative. In other words, all observers have the correct interpretation of events, meaning nothing is as it seems to be, from a certain point of view. B. Time is absolute. This is an extremely difficult theory to support, and thus I don't consider it valid, since time dilation has been observed, and the famous Michaelson-Morley experiment. C. Time is both absolute and relativistic. Time acts precisely the same as in relativity, but a preffered frame of reference exists that preserves causality at superluminal velocities. If anyone doesn't understand this, I'll explain it in more detail. Both the first and third present valid explanations of space-time. The only reason the first was chosen is because of Occam's Razor a scientific(?) law that states: "the simpler of two explanations is the correct one". (even though it has proven wrong on many occasions...). It would be extremely arrogant and reminiscient of the clerics who tormented Galileo and Copernicus to say that one theory is the say all and end all answer to space-time. Even Wheeler and Taylor in _Spacetime Physics_ admitted that the third theory is a possibility, and I respect them for that. If FTL effects are observed, relativity may need revision. Then again, there may be some way to keep relativity and allow causal FTL. We just don't know. I realize I'm stealing this quote and changing it a bit, but its a pretty good one: "Thousands of years ago, people KNEW earth was the center of the universe, hundreds of years ago, everyone KNEW the earth was flat, about a hundred years ago, everyone KNEW heavier than air flight was impossible. Think of what you'll KNOW tommorow." Just my two cents, Kyle Randall Mcallister Email: stk@sunherald.infi.net Phone: 228-875-0629 Fax: 228-872-5837 From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 10 11:13 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5665" "Sat" "10" "January" "1998" "20:11:02" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "108" "starship-design: Never ever lasting (was: What is safest?)" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA20024 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 11:13:36 -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 LAA19958 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 11:13:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-018.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xr6MC-001XvwC; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 20:14:08 +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: 5664 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: Never ever lasting (was: What is safest?) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 20:11:02 +0100 Hi Kelly, >>Explorers of the past could haul large amounts too, however it hindered >>their progress, often too much to reach their goal. >>We may be able to carry enough to fix sophisticated equipment, but it likely >>would increase ship weight (and crew) far beyond what would be the minimum >>for a succesful mission. > >Hard to answer without a very detailed analysis of the stuff we'ld be carring, >and what we'ld need to keep runing. Rough guess, longer the mission, the less >that will be working. However, if its something that is really needed, we'ld >be forced to carry every support systems and suplies nessisary to assure we >could keep 'it' runing. Explorers of the past also had to take equipment to keep stuff running. Even the fact that we won't have access to raw materials while cruising has a quite good analog for the ocean travelers who didn't have much more than salt water as an external source. So indeed unless we're making a voyage that (in relative sense) is shorter than that of past explorers we'll need to carry repair and manufacturing equipment. >>Well let me give a simple example then: Say you've two gears, in the past >>the quality of steel was rather poor, so they had to be big to have a >>reasonable lifetime. Now we can control the strength of steel much better so >>can make these gears thinner and smaller and still have the same lifetime. >>I'd guess that if we used better steel and kept the same size as in the >>past, then we'd really increase lifetime. >>Indeed the much larger mass of such a gear may not be acceptable, but if it >>means that it will need much less maintenance, thus less crew, thus less >>food, thus a smaller habitat, then I wonder if it really is less acceptable. > >Good trade off case. Thats why I'm assuming the heavy industrial and >structural systems would be over built to allow a long enough service life. >But then gears and metal components are pretty long lived anyway. Things get >much more brittel with high precision systems, especialy things like >electronics that arn't normally designed to work for decades. Well, it often depends on how heavely their load is. Often failures are the result of overheating. For that matter Lee is right, the larger limits of military equipment make it more resilient (however we may not need the same (amount of) limits as the military). >>Well, would todays technology combined with shortlived 2050 technology >>really be too crude for an interstellar exploration mission? >>(The 2050 equipment would be used until it failed and then the old and >>easier to repair technology would be used for further exploration.) > >Certainly the systems of most concern (computers, electronics, chemical >systems, etc..) would be unlikely to benifit from using 50 year old versions. >Thou their probably is some way to make custom designs for some systems that >would be more durable then their standard 2050 counterpart. Of course there is a limit to how old technology you could use. Using tubes rather than silicon chips would be an example of being too extreme. However we now can make components that have much wider ranges of use that past components. The market reacts to that by either using these new limits or by keeping the old limits but reducing the "wasted" parts of the components. As a result the components will be used upto its limits, which likely would make them fail earlier than when they would be used well within the extremes. The benefit of using what you calling "old versions" and what I like to call "updated old versions" is that they last longer, which has the advantage of freeing manpower. Clearly we've to find a balance between computing power and repairtime. Even with short missions repairtime may be an issue, or should I say: Especially with short missions repairtime is an issue. >>I wasn't comparing with a computer core, but with a chemical propulsion >>system (although I could have been more explicit). I believe that according >>to Lee todays propulsion systems do have a MTBF long enough for a two-way >>mission. >>I wondered whether fusion rockets would have similar reliability, since they >>likely are more complex than their chemical counterparts. And if our rockets >>are pulsed, they may get much more structural stress than chemical rockets >>that as far as I know are continuous. > >Chemicals do need to deal with presure and vibration. Hopefully fusion >systms would be less erratic, but if not the levels would need to be kept >similar or the vibration loads could shake the ship up badly. The pressure with fusion is much much higher than with chemical reaction. This is of course logical since it produces more power and higher exhuast velocities. My guess is that vibration too increases with power levels. Likely many small engines would push the structural demands less than a few big engines. Of course many small engines would be heavier and have more parts that could fail. >>Furthermore, while a fusion rocket may not need to turn the heat into >>electricity, it still is comparable with a fusion powerplant, since it too >>has to control the energy flow. It can't just be compared to a H-bomb, which >>can freely expand in all directions and hoped to do as much damage as >possible. >>How do these [broken circuit boards] kill people rapidly? I'd expect some >>autonomous backup systems. > >Assuming the backup control signals didn't need to feed through the circut >that died. ;) That's what I mean with "autonomous". They either don't need these cables (ie. they will react to a certain critical situation by themselves) or they have other cables to use as well. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 10 11:14 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1993" "Sat" "10" "January" "1998" "20:11:05" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "47" "starship-design: Mining vs. Recycling" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA20204 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 11:14:14 -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 LAA20198 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 11:14:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-018.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xr6MG-001XuaC; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 20:14:12 +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: 1992 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: Mining vs. Recycling Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 20:11:05 +0100 Hi Kelly, >>* Recycling can be done at any time. >>* Some form of recycling equipment has to be on the ship anyhow. >>* Recycling combined with storing substances in the shield may make mining >> unnecessary. (#) > >These I have a bit of problem with. Recycling has proven difficult and >resource consuptive, and should probably be minimized to save weight and >materials. Also its often far easier and less resource consuptive to mine >replacement material, then to recycle used. I'm not exactly sure what you mean with resource consumptive? Clearly energy shouldn't be a problem, so all that is left is the weight/mass of the recycling equipment. Part of the recycling equipment is refining equipment, that part (though in another form) will also be necessary when you mine. And of course mining equipment does have mass/weight too. About recycling being difficult: It may be much easier than mining in space. Since we have only a decade of real research in recycling and no experience at all in space mining, I doubt if we can make any reasonable guesses about both. >>* Some form of mining equipment has to be on the ship if (#) is impossible. >>* Finding relative easy accessable ores may be timeconsuming and >specialistic. > >We should have a good idea of the desired orebearing asteroids before we go on >the flight, though we'ld probably need a separte minning team. Hmmm, go all the way to Tau Ceti and do nothing but mining which you could have done at Sol too? (talk about being suicidal ;) Anyhow, even when asteroids have purer ores than Earth, they won't all be readely accessable and may need all tricks in the book to get what we need. >>* Recycling is relatively constant and with little surprises. > >Big disagre. Please explain. Only major equipment failure would give such surprises when recycling. What I meant with surprices is that few asteroids will be the same, I'm not so sure that mining for all kinds of materials will be "common practice". Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 10 11:14 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["586" "Sat" "10" "January" "1998" "20:11:07" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "21" "RE: starship-design: Hello?" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA20391 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 11:14:56 -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 LAA20369 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 11:14:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-018.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xr6MI-001XuyC; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 20:14:14 +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: 585 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: Hello? Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 20:11:07 +0100 Dave wrote to Paul: >Check out: >http://sunsite.unc.edu/lunar/school/InterStellar/newslets/projarc.html > >Way at the bottom of the list (weeks 1-10) you'll find the "Human >Factors and Crew Selection" archives. > >Uh oh. I just tried it and the links are dead. I'll see if I can find >the newsletters and upload them. I'll let you guys know when it's >there. D'oh! ALL newsletters can be found on one of the 2 URLs below: Mailings before Oct 1st, 1995 http://www.xs4all.nl/~jvdl/sdnewsletters/ Mailings after Oct 1st, 1995 ftp://ftp.efn.org/pub/users/stevev/starship-design/ From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 10 11:15 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["742" "Sat" "10" "January" "1998" "20:11:09" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "20" "starship-design: What is safest?" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA20468 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 11:15:40 -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 LAA20456 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 11:15:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-018.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xr6MJ-001Wq6C; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 20:14:15 +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: 741 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: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 20:11:09 +0100 Kelly, >>The more derived they are, the more complicated they get. Are Orion or any >>of its current derivatives usable to get us towards several tenths of c? >>Still the firing rates for these engines are quite low. If they don't rattle >>the ship to pieces, they are likely going to make the crew very sick. > >The pulse fusion systems generally work at a couple hundred cycles per >secound. Magnetic/electrostatic confinment systems are more steedy flow. At a site that Lee reported some time ago they talk about 1 Hertz: http://antimatter.phys.psu.edu/ICAN-II_Paper/ICAN-II_Features.html#thrustAndIsp My guess is that the pulsed fusion system you mention are even more sophisticated. (If not, (hyper) links are appreaciated.) Tim From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 10 13:32 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["539" "Sat" "10" "January" "1998" "22:31:56" "+0100" "Christoph Kulmann" "kulmann@zfn.uni-bremen.de" nil "19" "starship-design: ORION" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA13340 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 13:32:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de (alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.20.22]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA13321 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 13:32:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/ZFNserver) id AA31270; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 22:31:57 +0100 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Christoph Kulmann Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 538 From: Christoph Kulmann Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: ORION Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 22:31:56 +0100 (NFT) Hi Folks, There is a lot of talk in this list about a starship driven by nuclear explosions behind it. OK so far, but has anyone of you thought about the problem of shielding the drive itselve against the ENORMOUS heat generated by nuclear bombs? I simply cannot imagine any material able of a) generating enough resistance to push a ship in the range of hundreds of millions of tons ----> AND <---- b) NOT BEING VAPORIZED completely after 1,000 explosions!!! (or even less...) Can anyone of you explain? Christoph Kulmann From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 10 15:29 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["918" "Sat" "10" "January" "1998" "17:27:21" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "23" "RE: starship-design: Never ever lasting (was: What is safest?)" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA07220 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 15:29:20 -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 PAA07206 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 15:29:17 -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 RAA10141; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 17:29:09 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 17:29:08 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD1DED.420DD7A0.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: 917 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Timothy van der Linden'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Never ever lasting (was: What is safest?) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 17:27:21 -0600 On Saturday, January 10, 1998 1:11 PM, Timothy van der Linden [SMTP:TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl] wrote: > Explorers of the past also had to take equipment to keep stuff running. > Even > the fact that we won't have access to raw materials while cruising has a > quite good analog for the ocean travelers who didn't have much more than > salt water as an external source. > > So indeed unless we're making a voyage that (in relative sense) is > shorter > than that of past explorers we'll need to carry repair and manufacturing > equipment. > Lewis and Clark carried an iron framed collapsible boat with them on their journey across America in 1805. They had to abandon it at the Upper Portage of the Great Falls of the Missouri River in Montana "because they lacked materials - pine pitch and needles for sewing hides together - necessary for making the vessel watertight". We don't have such an option.... Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 10 15:29 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2980" "Sat" "10" "January" "1998" "17:17:44" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "58" "ICAN (Was RE: starship-design: What is safest?)" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA07252 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 15:29:26 -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 PAA07235 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 15:29:23 -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 RAA10132; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 17:29:01 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 17:29:01 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD1DED.3DBB9480.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: 2979 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Timothy van der Linden'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: ICAN (Was RE: starship-design: What is safest?) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 17:17:44 -0600 On Saturday, January 10, 1998 1:11 PM, Timothy van der Linden [SMTP:TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl] wrote: > > At a site that Lee reported some time ago they talk about 1 Hertz: > http://antimatter.phys.psu.edu/ICAN-II_Paper/ICAN- > II_Features.html#thrustAndIsp > > My guess is that the pulsed fusion system you mention are even more > sophisticated. (If not, (hyper) links are appreaciated.) The information on that web site is almost a year out of date. I'm not sure why they haven't updated it yet. The original concept did indeed specify 1 Hz. There have since been a few news articles and a TV program report on the concept (the producers of the TV program focused more on sails I'm afraid, probably because they looked prettier)as well as a paper presented somewhere a few months ago. Supposedly the system is undergoing initial testing at the moment... Anyway, somewhere in those reports I read mention of "several" per second, which I take to mean 3 or 4 per second. Without another search, I can't really give you any supporting references. If I do find them again, I will be sure to copy them to the listserv. Actually, the ICAN concept itself does not provide sufficient ISP for interstellar flight, just interplanetary. However, I was approaching this as a first generation engine only. The physics support eventually upgrading the fusion reaction to Be or Li providing significant increases in thrust. The ICAN concept does not include or make use of new magnetic nozzle technology that is also emerging at the moment and which would also provide additional thrust. In short, I am extrapolating from current technology to technology under development to the next generation of technology which should arise from the generation currently under development; in other words, about fifty years. I believe that is a reasonable extrapolation in that it doesn't involve anything that we don't already understand the underlying physics of, nor does it require FTL or any other exotic technology, just relatively simple fusion. In order to increase ISP and reliability I had envisioned a cluster of engines developed from the ICAN concept. If each one injects its pellet at a different time than the others you can probably get an overall frequency around 20 to 30 Hz with six engines. I discussed this somewhat with Kelly. The ICAN concept uses only an initial boost phase and then shuts the engines down and coasts the rest of the way until it is time to decelerate. This method keeps the engines well within current system lifetime capabilities but severely limits velocity. I was (am) hoping for a little more than that. If magnetic nozzle technology development proves out, it may be possible to extend the design lifetimes enough to sustain continuous boost. Personally, I think this will take between fifty and one hundred years to perfect, but it will permit cruise velocities approaching c within a few tenths of a percent. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jan 10 15:56 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1258" "Sat" "10" "January" "1998" "17:55:47" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "38" "RE: starship-design: ORION" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA12845 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 15:56:26 -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 PAA12837 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 15:56:23 -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 RAA12738; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 17:56:14 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 17:56:15 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD1DF1.0B4D96C0.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: 1257 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Christoph Kulmann'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: ORION Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 17:55:47 -0600 On Saturday, January 10, 1998 3:32 PM, Christoph Kulmann [SMTP:kulmann@zfn.uni-bremen.de] wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > There is a lot of talk in this list about a starship driven by nuclear > explosions behind it. OK so far, but has anyone of you thought about the > problem of shielding the drive itselve against the ENORMOUS heat > generated by nuclear bombs? I simply cannot imagine any material able of > > a) generating enough resistance to push a ship in the range of hundreds of > > millions of tons > > ----> AND <---- > > b) NOT BEING VAPORIZED completely after 1,000 explosions!!! (or even > less...) > > Can anyone of you explain? > > Christoph Kulmann Christopher, Check the site at: http://antimatter.phys.psu.edu/ICAN-II_Paper/index.htmla for full explanation, but yes, it can be done. The thrust shell is made out of lead and the heating loads on it do not exceed its limits. These are not LARGE explosions as in the original ORION and Daedelus concepts. Of course the system currently under development/test is crude and we hope to do better later and any more high performance systems WOULD have a great deal more heating to deal with, but there are hopes there also. Actually, the greatest problem will be neutron radiation. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Jan 11 14:29 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6444" "Sun" "11" "January" "1998" "17:29:11" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "137" "Re: starship-design: Never ever lasting (was: What is safest?)" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA10049 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 14:29:35 -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 OAA10044 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 14:29:32 -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: 6443 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Never ever lasting (was: What is safest?) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 17:29:11 EST Hi Tim. In a message dated 1/10/98 1:14:39 PM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >Hi Kelly, > >>>Explorers of the past could haul large amounts too, however it hindered >>>their progress, often too much to reach their goal. >>>We may be able to carry enough to fix sophisticated equipment, but it likely >>>would increase ship weight (and crew) far beyond what would be the minimum >>>for a succesful mission. >> >>Hard to answer without a very detailed analysis of the stuff we'ld be carring, >>and what we'ld need to keep runing. Rough guess, longer the mission, the less >>that will be working. However, if its something that is really needed, we'ld >>be forced to carry every support systems and suplies nessisary to assure we >>could keep 'it' runing. > >Explorers of the past also had to take equipment to keep stuff running. Even >the fact that we won't have access to raw materials while cruising has a >quite good analog for the ocean travelers who didn't have much more than >salt water as an external source. > >So indeed unless we're making a voyage that (in relative sense) is shorter >than that of past explorers we'll need to carry repair and manufacturing >equipment. Or one shorter then the equipment life expectancy of the gear. Their are some advantages to 21st century equipment. ;) But I do agree some gear would be nessisary. >>>Well let me give a simple example then: Say you've two gears, in the past >>>the quality of steel was rather poor, so they had to be big to have a >>>reasonable lifetime. Now we can control the strength of steel much better so >>>can make these gears thinner and smaller and still have the same lifetime. >>>I'd guess that if we used better steel and kept the same size as in the >>>past, then we'd really increase lifetime. >>>Indeed the much larger mass of such a gear may not be acceptable, but if it >>>means that it will need much less maintenance, thus less crew, thus less >>>food, thus a smaller habitat, then I wonder if it really is less acceptable. >> >>Good trade off case. Thats why I'm assuming the heavy industrial and >>structural systems would be over built to allow a long enough service life. >>But then gears and metal components are pretty long lived anyway. Things get >>much more brittel with high precision systems, especialy things like >>electronics that arn't normally designed to work for decades. > >Well, it often depends on how heavely their load is. Often failures are the >result of overheating. For that matter Lee is right, the larger limits of >military equipment make it more resilient (however we may not need the same >(amount of) limits as the military). Thermal cycling is an issue, but radiation and ionic flows get to be a problem after a while. Or simple corosion. >>>Well, would todays technology combined with shortlived 2050 technology >>>really be too crude for an interstellar exploration mission? >>>(The 2050 equipment would be used until it failed and then the old and >>>easier to repair technology would be used for further exploration.) >> >>Certainly the systems of most concern (computers, electronics, chemical >>systems, etc..) would be unlikely to benifit from using 50 year old versions. >>Thou their probably is some way to make custom designs for some systems that >>would be more durable then their standard 2050 counterpart. > >Of course there is a limit to how old technology you could use. Using tubes >rather than silicon chips would be an example of being too extreme. However >we now can make components that have much wider ranges of use that past >components. >The market reacts to that by either using these new limits or by keeping the >old limits but reducing the "wasted" parts of the components. As a result >the components will be used upto its limits, which likely would make them >fail earlier than when they would be used well within the extremes. >The benefit of using what you calling "old versions" and what I like to call >"updated old versions" is that they last longer, which has the advantage of >freeing manpower. Clearly we've to find a balance between computing power >and repairtime. >Even with short missions repairtime may be an issue, or should I say: >Especially with short missions repairtime is an issue. > >>>I wasn't comparing with a computer core, but with a chemical propulsion >>>system (although I could have been more explicit). I believe that according >>>to Lee todays propulsion systems do have a MTBF long enough for a two-way >>>mission. >>>I wondered whether fusion rockets would have similar reliability, since they >>>likely are more complex than their chemical counterparts. And if our rockets >>>are pulsed, they may get much more structural stress than chemical rockets >>>that as far as I know are continuous. >> >>Chemicals do need to deal with presure and vibration. Hopefully fusion >>systms would be less erratic, but if not the levels would need to be kept >>similar or the vibration loads could shake the ship up badly. > >The pressure with fusion is much much higher than with chemical reaction. >This is of course logical since it produces more power and higher exhuast >velocities. My guess is that vibration too increases with power levels. >Likely many small engines would push the structural demands less than a few >big engines. Of course many small engines would be heavier and have more >parts that could fail. Since the "pressure" would be held by magnetic or electrical fields (assuming it was held at all) it wouldn't have the same fategue load on the structure. >>>Furthermore, while a fusion rocket may not need to turn the heat into >>>electricity, it still is comparable with a fusion powerplant, since it too >>>has to control the energy flow. It can't just be compared to a H-bomb, which >>>can freely expand in all directions and hoped to do as much damage as >>possible. > >>>How do these [broken circuit boards] kill people rapidly? I'd expect some >>>autonomous backup systems. >> >>Assuming the backup control signals didn't need to feed through the circut >>that died. ;) > >That's what I mean with "autonomous". They either don't need these cables >(ie. they will react to a certain critical situation by themselves) or they >have other cables to use as well. Then the "autonomous" systems would need on-board systems to control them. The failure of their circut board (or whatever) would crash that system. >Timothy Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Jan 11 14:34 PST 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3624" "Sun" "11" "January" "1998" "17:29:07" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "85" "Re: starship-design: Mining vs. Recycling" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA11045 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 14:34:39 -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 OAA11036 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 14:34:35 -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: 3623 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Mining vs. Recycling Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 17:29:07 EST Hi Tim, In a message dated 1/10/98 1:15:25 PM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote: >Hi Kelly, > >>>* Recycling can be done at any time. >>>* Some form of recycling equipment has to be on the ship anyhow. >>>* Recycling combined with storing substances in the shield may make mining >>> unnecessary. (#) >> >>These I have a bit of problem with. Recycling has proven difficult and >>resource consuptive, and should probably be minimized to save weight and >>materials. Also its often far easier and less resource consuptive to mine >>replacement material, then to recycle used. > >I'm not exactly sure what you mean with resource consumptive? Clearly energy >shouldn't be a problem, so all that is left is the weight/mass of the >recycling equipment. Part of the recycling equipment is refining equipment, >that part (though in another form) will also be necessary when you mine. >And of course mining equipment does have mass/weight too. The recycling equipment and chemical suplies to break down the processed materials into simpler forms. Since most things we use are things designed to be stable and not break down, they are generally made of stuff thats chemically hard to decompose back into its sinpler states. (You could use a plasma decomposition system to get around that. But that has its own problems, and the result it pure chemicals, no componds.) Electronics are especially found of HIGHLY complex chemical componds and processes. >About recycling being difficult: It may be much easier than mining in space. >Since we have only a decade of real research in recycling and no experience >at all in space mining, I doubt if we can make any reasonable guesses about >both. We have centuries of research into recycling, it just was a normal industrial concern, without a trendy name and political movement to confuse it. We also have a lot of experience with minning and processing ores of various grades and some knowledge of the composition of the space materials (asteroids and comet cores) that we'ld process. >>>* Some form of mining equipment has to be on the ship if (#) is impossible. >>>* Finding relative easy accessable ores may be timeconsuming and >>specialistic. >> >>We should have a good idea of the desired orebearing asteroids before we go on >>the flight, though we'ld probably need a separte minning team. > >Hmmm, go all the way to Tau Ceti and do nothing but mining which you could >have done at Sol too? (talk about being suicidal ;) >Anyhow, even when asteroids have purer ores than Earth, they won't all be >readely accessable and may need all tricks in the book to get what we need. ? I don't follow. You'ld know what the ore is at Tau C or A centari before we sent a ship or probe, and presumably we wouldn't carry a lot of heavy ore we could find there just as easy. Given a return flight or long stay mission would need HUGE amounts of material, we couldn't afford to carry it all. >>>* Recycling is relatively constant and with little surprises. >> >>Big disagre. > >Please explain. Only major equipment failure would give such surprises when >recycling. What I meant with surprices is that few asteroids will be the >same, I'm not so sure that mining for all kinds of materials will be "common >practice". Recycling would have a 'known' feed stock assuming no contamination, and a constant suply. This is vitualy unknown in garbage since thing are always dirty, broken, and thrown away in unusually patterns as things break down or are consumed. Asteroids generally seem to be lose piles of similar materials, generally of very high purity. >Timothy Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Jan 12 13:25:58 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["808" "Mon" "12" "January" "1998" "16:17:57" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "19" "Re: ICAN (Was RE: starship-design: What is safest?)" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA07853 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 13:25:54 -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 NAA07819 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 13:25:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <79f56818.34ba8886@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 807 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: ICAN (Was RE: starship-design: What is safest?) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 16:17:57 EST >I discussed this somewhat with Kelly. The ICAN concept uses only an initial >boost phase and then shuts the engines down and coasts the rest of the way >until it is time to decelerate. This method keeps the engines well within >current system lifetime capabilities but severely limits velocity. I was >(am) hoping for a little more than that. If magnetic nozzle technology >development proves out, it may be possible to extend the design lifetimes >enough to sustain continuous boost. Personally, I think this will take >between fifty and one hundred years to perfect, but it will permit cruise >velocities approaching c within a few tenths of a percent. Can it really carry enough fuel to boost to and from such a speed? What kind of fuel ratios or ISP do you think are possible? >Lee Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Jan 12 13:30:16 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2048" "Sat" "10" "January" "1998" "18:22:51" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "45" "starship-design: JPL Research & Technology Report" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA10096 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 13:30:15 -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 NAA10043 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 13:30:11 -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 PAA20658 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 15:30:09 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 15:29:49 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD1F6E.EBB1BEC0.lparker@cacaphony.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 2047 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: JPL Research & Technology Report Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 18:22:51 -0600 This is a quote from a NASA report about the ICAN project: "Pennsylvania State University Antiproton-Catalyzed Micro-Fission/Fusion Concept This picture illustrates the antiproton-catalyzed micro-fission/fusion concept under development at Pennsylvania State University. In this approach to inertial confinement fusion (ICF) propulsion, a pellet containing uranium (U) fission fuel and deuterium-tritium (D-T) fusion fuel is compressed by lasers, ion beams, etc. At the time of peak compression, the target is bombarded with a small number (~100 million) of antiprotons to catalyze the U fission process. (For comparison, ordinary U fission produces around 2 neutrons per fission; by contrast, antiproton-induced U fission has been experimentally observed to produce about 16 neutrons per fission.) The fission energy release then triggers a high-efficiency fusion burn to heat the propellant, resulting in an expanding plasma used to produce thrust. Interestingly, unlike "pure" antimatter propulsion concepts which use large amounts of antimatter (because all of the propulsive energy is supplied by matter-antimatter annihilation), this concept uses antimatter in amounts that we can produce today with existing technology and facilities. Also, because much of the fusion ignition energy comes from the initial fission reaction, it may be possible to employ simpler pellet compression "drivers" (e.g., lasers, etc.) and use aneutronic (non-neutron producing) fuels like D-He3." The last sentence explains my optimism for this concept. There are other aneutronic reactions that liberate even more energy. If we can scale this up just a little more... The full report can be found at: http://jpl-edm.jpl.nasa.gov/~tap/Report_dir/242-70-03.html 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 Tue Jan 13 10:46:28 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["272" "Tue" "13" "January" "1998" "13:44:01" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "15" "starship-design: Re: Planet generator" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA09822 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 10:46:21 -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 KAA09794 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 10:46:12 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <69f70121.34bbb5f2@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 271 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: joverton@whq.wizcom.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Planet generator Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 13:44:01 EST In a message dated 1/13/98 12:33:40 PM, you wrote: >Hi, > >Is your planet generator functioning? I tried it and waited for a half >hour, with no results. > >Thanks! Guess not then. Frankly I can't even remember what it was. Could you be a bit more specific? Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Jan 13 10:48:33 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1204" "Tue" "13" "January" "1998" "13:47:49" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "44" "Re: RE: ICAN (Was RE: starship-design: What is safest?)" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA10900 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 10:48:32 -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 KAA10879 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 10:48:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <9eaa7eb4.34bbb6d6@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 1203 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: ICAN (Was RE: starship-design: What is safest?) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 13:47:49 EST In a message dated 1/12/98 10:32:12 PM, you wrote: > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > >> [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of Kelly St > >> Sent: Monday, January 12, 1998 3:18 PM > >> To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > >> Subject: Re: ICAN (Was RE: starship-design: What is safest?) > >> Can it really carry enough fuel to boost to and from such a speed? What >kind >> of fuel ratios or ISP do you think are possible? > >> > >Just looking at the amount of energy available going from D to He to Li is a >significant jump. Although in order to get the hundred fold increase we >need, there will have to significant boost from the magnetic nozzle also. Given that the fusion reactions weve been talking about release all their energy into the kinetic energy of their exaust particals. I'm not clear where the extra energy to drive the magnetic acceleration (via the nozzel) would come from? >Carrying sufficient fuel shouldn't be a problem, making it may be another >story. A hundred boxcars full of little lithium hydride bomb pellets... I think making them as you need them is definatly in order. >Lee Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Jan 13 10:55:03 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["592" "Tue" "13" "January" "1998" "13:54:43" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "30" "starship-design: Re: Re: Planet generator" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA14150 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 10:55:02 -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 KAA14106 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 10:54:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3f2138b6.34bbb873@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 591 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: joverton@whq.wizcom.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Re: Planet generator Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 13:54:43 EST In a message dated 1/13/98 12:48:46 PM, you wrote: >Sure...At >http://sunsite.unc.edu/lunar/pck.html >you (or someone) has a "Planet creation kit". >It looked neat, and I wanted to see the outcome, but it didnt seem to be >working. > >Kelly St wrote: >> >> In a message dated 1/13/98 12:33:40 PM, you wrote: >> >> >Hi, >> > >> >Is your planet generator functioning? I tried it and waited for a half >> >hour, with no results. >> > >> >Thanks! >> >> Guess not then. Frankly I can't even remember what it was. Could you be a >> bit more specific? >> >> Kelly Any Ideas guys? Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Jan 13 11:15:34 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1169" "Tue" "13" "January" "1998" "13:12:12" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "33" "RE: RE: ICAN (Was RE: starship-design: What is safest?)" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA28786 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 11:15:33 -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 LAA28766 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 11:15:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p37.gnt.com [204.49.68.242]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA02576; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 13:15:19 -0600 Message-Id: <199801131915.NAA02576@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: <9eaa7eb4.34bbb6d6@aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 1168 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Kelly St'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: ICAN (Was RE: starship-design: What is safest?) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 13:12:12 -0600 > -----Original Message----- > From: Kelly St [mailto:KellySt@aol.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 1998 12:48 PM > To: lparker@cacaphony.net; starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: RE: ICAN (Was RE: starship-design: What is safest?) > > Given that the fusion reactions weve been talking about release all their > energy into the kinetic energy of their exaust particals. I'm not clear where > the extra energy to drive the magnetic acceleration (via the nozzel) would > come from? It can be bled off through an MHD field or through intercooling the shielding to drive turbogenerators. Whichever provides the most energy with the least maintenance. > I think making them as you need them is definitely in order. That may be beyond shipboard resources. I don't know how they make the pellets in the first place - any takers? 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 Jan 13 13:27:25 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2031" "Tue" "13" "January" "1998" "16:26:34" "-0500" "Philip Bakelaar" "bakelaar@injersey.com" nil "35" "starship-design: hello and help :)" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA27715 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 13:25:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from nj5.injersey.com (root@nj5.injersey.com [206.139.48.252]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA27665 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 13:25:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from bakelaar.injersey.com (ppp073-tmrv.injersey.com [206.139.59.73]) by nj5.injersey.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA06699 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 16:38:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980113162634.006e42a4@injersey.com> X-Sender: bakelaar@injersey.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) In-Reply-To: <199801131915.NAA02576@hurricane.gnt.net> References: <9eaa7eb4.34bbb6d6@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Philip Bakelaar Content-Length: 2030 From: Philip Bakelaar Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: hello and help :) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 16:26:34 -0500 hello to all friends, old and new... i havent been able to keep up with this list lately, mainly because work and school demand most of my time. perhaps some of you will remember me, i was one of the last on the list before we got the LISTSERV set up. i hope some of you remember me anyway :) i need help... im going into 12th grade next year, and this year my science courses are chemistry 2 and physics. i dont particularly like physics, and i practically hate chemistry :) but our class in chemistry just stumbled on to chapter 18, nuclear reactions, and for some reason i love it. i asked my chemistry teacher if i could have an independent science study in it next year. she said i would have to ask my physics teacher, as it really wasnt chemistry at all, but physics. so i asked my physics teacher. he had barely even heard of nuclear physics :) so i talked to a bunch of administrative people at my school and, basically, what i need is a teacher. thats the purpose of this letter... if any of you would be willing/able to help me out with this, in any way, it would be most greatly appreciated. i was planning on teaching myself most everything, but obviously the school wants some sort of teacher i can correspond with. i know that calculus 2 students in my school do an internet correspondence with stanford university, because there is no calculus 2 teacher, so im sure the school is not against internet teaching. if anyone thinks they can help out in any way, please respond. helping me design a course syllabus, agreeing to teach, you know of someone who might be able to help, etc etc etc etc etc, anything! also i dont think the time requirements would be much, mostly just helping me design problems and possibly checking them once a week, a test here and there, etc. to appease the school :) certainly not a full-time position, so to speak. hank you so much! ben bakelaar p.s. please respond directly to me, not the whole list, as that could become annoying to the recievers of this mailing list :) From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Jan 14 10:35:01 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["931" "Wed" "14" "January" "1998" "13:31:53" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "25" "Re: RE: RE: ICAN (Was RE: starship-design: What is safest?)" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13074 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 1998 10:34:55 -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 KAA13002 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 1998 10:34:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 930 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: ICAN (Was RE: starship-design: What is safest?) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 13:31:53 EST In a message dated 1/13/98 1:15:53 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >> Given that the fusion reactions weve been talking about release all their >> energy into the kinetic energy of their exaust particals. I'm not clear >>where the extra energy to drive the magnetic acceleration (via the >> nozzel) would come from? > >It can be bled off through an MHD field or through intercooling the >shielding to drive turbogenerators. Whichever provides the most energy with >the least maintenance. > No you missed the point. By bleeding off exaust stream into a MHD converter you convert some/all te kinetic energy of that part of the exuast streem into electricity. You then use that electricity to add kinetic energyu to part/all of the exaust stream. Effectivly your not adding any kinetic energy to the exaust streem, your just shuffling it around. How does that add effective thrust per pound of fusion fuel? > >Lee Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Jan 14 12:47:14 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1997" "Wed" "14" "January" "1998" "14:45:58" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "50" "starship-design: ICAN" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA19991 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 1998 12:47:02 -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 MAA19912 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 1998 12:46:56 -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 OAA04136; Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:46:29 -0600 Message-Id: <199801142046.OAA04136@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 1996 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Kelly St'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: ICAN Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:45:58 -0600 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of Kelly St > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 1998 12:32 PM > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: RE: RE: ICAN (Was RE: starship-design: What is safest?) > > > > No you missed the point. By bleeding off exaust stream into a MHD converter > you convert some/all te kinetic energy of that part of the exuast streem into > electricity. You then use that electricity to add kinetic energyu to part/all > of the exaust stream. Effectivly your not adding any kinetic energy to the > exaust streem, your just shuffling it around. How does that add effective > thrust per pound of fusion fuel? Oh, I see what you're saying. You are assuming the magnetic nozzle is also an accelerator - I wasn't. It may be that it is, in which case you are correct, that would clearly be an example of an entropy device! I will have to check the research and see exactly what it is meant to accomplish. I am afraid I did not read that paper all the way through, just the abstract, one can only read so much, especially when it isn't really job related... If you want to create an accelerator type of device out of magnetic fields there would have to be some sort of auxiliary power as well. My guess would be one or more fusion reactors of a more conventional sort. I think we can probably get sufficient ISP and thrust to weight figures without accelerators though. If we can up the strength of the nozzle field sufficiently then we can reduce the containment volume producing higher pressures than we could withstand with purely material walls. I still believe that we are looking at more than fifty years though. Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke's "Third Law" From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Jan 15 12:48:08 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5072" "Thu" "15" "January" "1998" "21:39:21" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "102" "starship-design: Re: Mining vs. Recycling" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA07434 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:47:40 -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 MAA05418 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:44:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-009.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xsw7f-001Yz1C; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:42:43 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Length: 5071 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: Mining vs. Recycling Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:39:21 +0100 Hello again Kelly, >>I'm not exactly sure what you mean with resource consumptive? Clearly energy >>shouldn't be a problem, so all that is left is the weight/mass of the >>recycling equipment. Part of the recycling equipment is refining equipment, >>that part (though in another form) will also be necessary when you mine. >>And of course mining equipment does have mass/weight too. > >The recycling equipment and chemical suplies to break down the processed >materials into simpler forms. Since most things we use are things designed to >be stable and not break down, they are generally made of stuff thats >chemically hard to decompose back into its sinpler states. To not break down by normal thermal cycling or wear and tear isn't so directly related to chemical decomposition as you suggest. Heat things up a bit over 200 Centigrade and you'll soon find that they break down or react with other chemicals quite well. >(You could use a >plasma decomposition system to get around that. But that has its own >problems, and the result it pure chemicals, no componds.) Indeed the output of the decomposition equipment is likely not to be in the compounds we need. But how many and which compounds would we need that can also be easely mined? (Oil derivatives can be created relative easely from pure elements as well.) Clearly I'm not talking about things like wood, paper, cotton, leather. These would be impossible to be recyled close to their original state. I guess we should avoid using these products, but I guess that wouldn't be a too big offer. >Electronics are especially found of HIGHLY complex chemical componds and >processes. Really? The amount of chemicals should be rather small, since the number of significantly different components is rather small. I don't know the exact substances in all components, but can't imagine any of them needing to be highly complex in chemical structure. (I can only think of a few metals, copper, lead, zinc, some simple plastics and maybe a bit of ceramic and silicon.) >>About recycling being difficult: It may be much easier than mining in space. >>Since we have only a decade of real research in recycling and no experience >>at all in space mining, I doubt if we can make any reasonable guesses about >>both. > >We have centuries of research into recycling, it just was a normal industrial >concern, without a trendy name and political movement to confuse it. We also >have a lot of experience with minning and processing ores of various grades >and some knowledge of the composition of the space materials (asteroids and >comet cores) that we'ld process. Well, then what makes the kind of recycling we need so much more difficult than space mining and refining we need? If asteroid resources are more pure then compounds must be more scarce. Getting pure elements from trash could be about as easy as mining, except that mining usualy needs less energy. (The recycling doesn't have to be like remelting old plastics, it could be complete decomposition, although that of course could cost more energy.) >>Hmmm, go all the way to Tau Ceti and do nothing but mining which you could >>have done at Sol too? (talk about being suicidal ;) >>Anyhow, even when asteroids have purer ores than Earth, they won't all be >>readely accessable and may need all tricks in the book to get what we need. > >? I don't follow. You'ld know what the ore is at Tau C or A centari before >we sent a ship or probe, and presumably we wouldn't carry a lot of heavy ore >we could find there just as easy. Given a return flight or long stay mission >would need HUGE amounts of material, we couldn't afford to carry it all. But we could afford to recycle it all. (This is still mining versus recycling.) >>>>* Recycling is relatively constant and with little surprises. >>> >>>Big disagre. >> >>Please explain. Only major equipment failure would give such surprises when >>recycling. What I meant with surprices is that few asteroids will be the >>same, I'm not so sure that mining for all kinds of materials will be "common >>practice". > >Recycling would have a 'known' feed stock assuming no contamination, and a >constant suply. This is vitualy unknown in garbage since thing are always >dirty, broken, and thrown away in unusually patterns as things break down or >are consumed. If we use complete plasma decomposition than that problem would be solved. Sure here on Earth the energy costs would make it completely inefficient, however in space it may save time and be more reliable than mining. The energy costs would really be neglectable compared to what the engine needs. (If energy was really a problem, the waste heat could be used in a heating system for the rest of the space ship.) >Asteroids generally seem to be lose piles of similar materials, generally of >very high purity. But even if most are very pure, you'd never know what contamination they'd have. Anyhow, why bother about contamination. It's relative easy to test what decontaminations are present both in mined and recycled material. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Jan 15 13:04:16 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1750" "Thu" "15" "January" "1998" "22:01:50" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "44" "starship-design: Re: ICAN" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA18492 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 13:04:15 -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 NAA18336 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 13:03:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-009.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xswTP-001YzxC; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 22:05:11 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Length: 1749 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: ICAN Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 22:01:50 +0100 Hi Lee, Glad we came to an understanding about the subjects: - Mining vs. Recycling - Never ever lasting About the fusion engines: The main reason to keep the firing rate low was because waste heat would otherwise melt the trottle/engine. You suggested to use multiple engines, but that would increase complexity and thus lower lifetime. (But I admit also add a certain redundancy which would increase the time that a certain fraction of the engines keeps working.) In your first ICAN letter (to me) you wrote: >In short, I am extrapolating from current technology to >technology under development to the next generation of technology which >should arise from the generation currently under development; in other >words, about fifty years. This makes my "fears" about complexity even worse. I'm not saying that fusion engines aren't useful. I'm saying that the ones we need will be just as or more complex as current rocket engines and thus may shorter lifetimes. (Which makes Kelly's argument that the engines aren't likely to fail during the "short" acceleration and deceleration tracks less valid.) "A pellet injector and a bunch of ion accelerators" do not sound simpler than a chemical rocket. (Maybe also not more complex, but they feel much more fragile.) As a side issue, you wrote: >If magnetic nozzle technology >development proves out, it may be possible to extend the design lifetimes >enough to sustain continuous boost. Personally, I think this will take >between fifty and one hundred years to perfect, but it will permit cruise >velocities approaching c within a few tenths of a percent. Except of course that cruise velocities over 0.3c still means mass ratios of more than 100 as long as one uses fusion. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Jan 15 17:24:09 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1750" "Thu" "15" "January" "1998" "21:39:17" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "44" "starship-design: Re: ICAN" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA13522 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:24:03 -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 RAA13338 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:23:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-009.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xsw7b-001YyyC; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:42:39 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Length: 1749 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: starship-design: Re: ICAN Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:39:17 +0100 Hi Lee, Glad we came to an understanding about the subjects: - Mining vs. Recycling - Never ever lasting About the fusion engines: The main reason to keep the firing rate low was because waste heat would otherwise melt the trottle/engine. You suggested to use multiple engines, but that would increase complexity and thus lower lifetime. (But I admit also add a certain redundancy which would increase the time that a certain fraction of the engines keeps working.) In your first ICAN letter (to me) you wrote: >In short, I am extrapolating from current technology to >technology under development to the next generation of technology which >should arise from the generation currently under development; in other >words, about fifty years. This makes my "fears" about complexity even worse. I'm not saying that fusion engines aren't useful. I'm saying that the ones we need will be just as or more complex as current rocket engines and thus may shorter lifetimes. (Which makes Kelly's argument that the engines aren't likely to fail during the "short" acceleration and deceleration tracks less valid.) "A pellet injector and a bunch of ion accelerators" do not sound simpler than a chemical rocket. (Maybe also not more complex, but they feel much more fragile.) As a side issue, you wrote: >If magnetic nozzle technology >development proves out, it may be possible to extend the design lifetimes >enough to sustain continuous boost. Personally, I think this will take >between fifty and one hundred years to perfect, but it will permit cruise >velocities approaching c within a few tenths of a percent. Except of course that cruise velocities over 0.3c still means mass ratios of more than 100 as long as one uses fusion. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 16 03:24:14 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4993" "Fri" "16" "January" "1998" "12:22:23" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "117" "starship-design: Re: ICAN" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA10370 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 03:24:12 -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 DAA10341 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 03:23:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-028.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xt9uF-001YXeC; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:25:47 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Length: 4992 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: ICAN Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:22:23 +0100 Lee, Sorry for sending the previous ICAN reply to the list twice. (More about that at the bottom of this letter.) >> About the fusion engines: >> The main reason to keep the firing rate low was because waste heat would >> otherwise melt the trottle/engine. > >Using the baseline ICAN paper - the material (lead!) is well within >acceptable thermal load regimes for the firing times they require. I really >don't see any reason that firing durations in excess of 2,000 hours would >make much difference, but I expect that if we did go to such a design we >wouldn't be depending PRIMARILY on the material anyway, I would expect some >advancement in both magnetic and material shielding. Well this is what they write: Heat Dissipation Approximately 2 GJ of residual thermal energy remains in the surface of the thrust shell within the engine after expansion of the propellant. Since this energy is initially concentrated in a hot, thin layer at the surface, radiation dissipation of the heat is expected to occur at power levels of tens of GW's. At a one hertz firing rate, this should provide sufficient cooling to maintain a safe operating temperature. Some active cooling of the structural steel and TiC shell components may be necessary, and could be used in a power cycle involving other vehicle requirements. Liquid droplet shields are under investigation for protection of these systems, as well as the ion beam components in the engine. It indeed doesn't tell about firing durations, but I wasn't discussing that in the above. >> You suggested to use multiple engines, but that would increase complexity >> and thus lower lifetime. (But I admit also add a certain redundancy which >> would increase the time that a certain fraction of the engines keeps >> working.) > >No, you are confusing complexity with quantity. Five screwdrivers are not >more complex than one screwdriver...similarly, five fusion engines aren't >more complex than one. You're right, not more complex but more extensive, having five screwdrivers means five times more parts which have to be maintained/repaired. (MTBF goes down, but lifetime stays the same but gets more stable.) (Unfortunately if one engine fails the others can't correct the acceleration direction since the engines at one side of the "lever" will push more than those on the other side of the lever and thus rotate the ship. My guess is that if one engine fails it means shutting of a second as well.) So yes, more engines don't decrease or increase lifetime, they only make the engine system die gradually rather than suddenly but do increase maintenance needs. >> This makes my "fears" about complexity even worse. > >Gee, that should help alleviate your fears! We would have fifty plus years >of experience working with the technology and should have thoroughly >debugged it by then. As for any incremental advances, they shouldn't be as >critical as the basic technology and would probably be based on solid >experience as well. Well if we'd stick to the original ICAN then we'd have debugged it completely by that time. But since we can't use the original ICAN and have to increase performance it means a lot of changes, which likely means more additions. I guess that performance will go up relatively fast, but that the lifetime and failure rate do increase much less. (They won't go down, since that isn't acceptable.) >> Except of course that cruise velocities over 0.3c still means mass ratios >> of more than 100 as long as one uses fusion. > >Well, nothing is perfect, we agreed not to consider quantum fluctuations :-> Maybe we should consider them, it seems the internet does already use them: Yesterday evening at 21:42:39 I mailed my first reply from "tip.nl", some 22 minutes later I still hadn't received a copy from our list server at "darkwing". So I decided to send it again. Well... here are the results: ----------------------------------------------------------------- First try: Received: from hengelo-009.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:42:39 +0100 (MET) Received: from helium.tip.nl by darkwing.uoregon.edu Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:23:44 -0800 (PST) = 02:23:44 (MET) next day Transfer time: +03:41:55 hours ----------------------------------------------------------------- Second try: Received: from hengelo-009.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl Thu, 15 Jan 1998 22:05:11 +0100 (MET) Received: from helium.tip.nl by darkwing.uoregon.edu Thu, 15 Jan 1998 13:03:59 -0800 (PST) = 22:03:59 (MET) Transfer time: -00:01:12 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Quantum tunneling seems to be the effect that is happening here. There's a chance that the electrons of my electronic mail arrive before they are sent. Otherwise they'll be scattered across the internet and if lucky get to their destination after all. ;-) Timothy P.S. The above is a quite twisted view of quantum mechanics. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 16 12:45:33 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2319" "Fri" "16" "January" "1998" "15:36:33" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "54" "starship-design: Re: ICAN" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA09335 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:45:22 -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 MAA09307 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:45:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20ed896.34bfc4d3@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 2318 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: ICAN Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 15:36:33 EST In a message dated 1/14/98 2:47:30 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >> No you missed the point. By bleeding off exaust stream into a MHD >converter >> you convert some/all te kinetic energy of that part of the exuast streem >into >> electricity. You then use that electricity to add kinetic energyu to >part/all >> of the exaust stream. Effectivly your not adding any kinetic energy to >the >> exaust streem, your just shuffling it around. How does that add effective >> thrust per pound of fusion fuel? > > >Oh, I see what you're saying. You are assuming the magnetic nozzle is also >an accelerator - I wasn't. It may be that it is, in which case you are >correct, that would clearly be an example of an entropy device! I will have >to check the research and see exactly what it is meant to accomplish. I am >afraid I did not read that paper all the way through, just the abstract, one >can only read so much, especially when it isn't really job related... I understand, my reading inbasket has turned into a full higth bookshelf. But as a guess unless the magnetic field did act as an accelerator, it couldn't accelerate the exaust stream any. I.e. their would be no other energy in the system that could be turned into extra kinitic energy. >If you want to create an accelerator type of device out of magnetic fields >there would have to be some sort of auxiliary power as well. My guess would >be one or more fusion reactors of a more conventional sort. I think we can >probably get sufficient ISP and thrust to weight figures without >accelerators though. If we can up the strength of the nozzle field >sufficiently then we can reduce the containment volume producing higher >pressures than we could withstand with purely material walls. I'm not sure about this would work. Your still limited to the total energy of the system. Since its already puting out 100% as kinetic energy in its plasma their not other source to accelerate it higher via the 'presure' of the fields. >I still believe that we are looking at more than fifty years though. Hard to tell. In the 40's no one would have bet we could get into space, or be on the moon by the end of the '60's. Over a couple years nothing changes as much as you'ld expect, over decades everything changes more then you'ld believe. >Lee Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 16 19:39:31 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["636" "Fri" "16" "January" "1998" "21:38:47" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "20" "RE: starship-design: Re: ICAN" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA20072 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 19:39:21 -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 TAA20048 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 19:39:18 -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 VAA28762; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 21:39:12 -0600 Message-Id: <199801170339.VAA28762@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: <20ed896.34bfc4d3@aol.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 635 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Kelly St'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: ICAN Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 21:38:47 -0600 > Hard to tell. In the 40's no one would have bet we could get into space, or > be on the moon by the end of the '60's. Over a couple years nothing changes > as much as you'ld expect, over decades everything changes more then you'ld > believe. > True, I hope so anyway. Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- Long experience has taught me not to believe in the limitations indicated by purely theoretical considerations. These - as we well know - are based on insufficient knowledge of all the relevant factors." Guglielmo Marconi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Jan 18 13:34:48 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1043" "Sun" "18" "January" "1998" "16:28:55" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "32" "starship-design: Re: your web site" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA28854 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 13:34:34 -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 NAA28812 for ; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 13:34:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 1042 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Shumoda@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: your web site Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 16:28:55 EST In a message dated 1/17/98 6:03:46 AM, you wrote: >I have enjoyed visiting your site...have found much information for my > own enjoyment and ideas for future projects. > >Also, if intrested, I have for sale a three hour audio documentary that I have >written and produced available for sale. The documentary is entitled; "Watch the >Skies, The UFO Enigma. Contains some of the best sightings from the Center for >UFO Studies, Roswell crash and Abductions....plenty of interviews.... > >This Project has won awards from the Associated Press, Association > of Independants in Radio, and the National Broadcasters Assoication. > >Dale R. Caruso > >shumoda@aol.com Thanks, I'm glad you liked our site and found its materials interesting. What kind of ideas for future projects did it inspire? As to you UFO documentary however I don't think I would be interested. Frankly the UFO "enigma" seems a contradiction in terms, or a measure of people lack of knowledge of what is in the skys. Thanks again for you interest in our site. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Jan 21 02:14:35 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2235" "Wed" "21" "January" "1998" "11:12:37" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "47" "starship-design: Re: ICAN" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA24576 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 02:14:16 -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 CAA24571 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 02:14:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from hengelo-017.std.pop.tip.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0xuxCX-001YXJC; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 11:16:05 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden) Content-Length: 2234 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: ICAN Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 11:12:37 +0100 Hi Lee, You wrote: >There is currently research underway in the field of intermetallics that may >yield promising new alloys. They are designing primarily alloys of aluminum >and nickel for use in turbines, but there have been some recent experiments >with tungsten as well. It is conceivable that we can achieve an >intermetallic alloy of tungsten that would provide a MUCH tougher reaction >shell than lead. Coupled with better magnetic shielding, there may be hope. There better be hope... >> Well if we'd stick to the original ICAN then we'd have debugged it >> completely by that time. But since we can't use the original ICAN and have >> to increase performance it means a lot of changes, which likely means more >> additions. >> I guess that performance will go up relatively fast, but that the lifetime >> and failure rate do increase much less. (They won't go down, since that >> isn't acceptable.) > >The closest analogy I can come up with is unfortunately an automobile. (I >know, we have already used this one once and got off on a wild goose >chase...) There is barely a hundred years difference between the original >automobiles and today's vehicles, and despite massive increases in >performance and reliability, the basic principles underlying the technology >are not much different. Vastly refined, but little different. Now, bearing >this in mind, which vehicle would you prefer to drive across Denmark, >Luxembourg, France, Switzerland and Austria in - a replica of a Daimler Benz >built a fifty years ago, or a 1997 Saab 900 Turbo? I'm not sure if you analogy is close enough. I already said that if that Daimler Benz was debugged, it would have a longer life than the original Daimler Benz. My question is whether a debugged Daimler Benz wouldn't drive further than a Saab that has new combinations of parts that haven't been debugged as thoroughly. You might question whether a new Saab isn't a debugged version of a Daimler Benz, it indeed is vasly refined but little different. However a turbo, computerized motor control etc. are changes rather than removed bugs. (And in the case that an old replica would break down the parts would likely be easier to replace with use of crude technology.) Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Jan 22 09:44:53 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2865" "Wed" "21" "January" "1998" "23:40:01" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "74" "starship-design: Re: Your help on starship engines" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA13200 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 09:44:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA13167 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 09:44:29 -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 UAA19596 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 20:42:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <2a4af4d1.34c6cda3@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 2864 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: CygnusXY@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Your help on starship engines Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 23:40:01 EST In a message dated 1/20/98 10:42:35 PM, you wrote: >I ran across your stardrive article in the Lunar Institute of Technology web page. >I found it insightful for my personal research. I was wondering if you could help >me out with a problem that has been bothering me for sometime. > >Could you have nuclear fission rocket in which the uranium or plutonium was in >a gasseous state? I read about it in a book called "Thrust Into Space" by Maxwell >W. Hunter the 2nd. Its a gasseous fission engine. The pressure inside the reactor >is between 500 and 1500 atmospheres. The gasseous uranium or plutonium would be >compact enough to provide a chain reaction. The advantage, so says the book, over >a fission reactor using this instead of a solid reactor would be that the gasseous >reactor could have higher temperatures. Up to 200,000 degrees F. The higher the >temperature the higher the energy that can be put into the reaction mass. The book >also suggests that by using the only the heat transfered by radiation alone at >those temperatures one could energize the reaction mass without losing any fissionable >material. The reaction mass would have to be opaque. The blacker throughout the >entire EM spectrum the better. The reaction mass is on one side of a transpatent >wall and the core is on the other. The only way I could figure out how this method >would allow higher temperatures than a solid core would be because sense the fissionable >material was in a gas state it could be set to never actually touch the sides of >the chamber its in by using a magnetic field. I see this type of engine being a >centrifuge that rotates rapidly forcing the gas outward. A magnetic field keeps >it from touching the chamber wall. Through the center is a transparent tube that >the reaction mass runs through. > >The problem with all of this is that the book was written in 1966 and I can't find >any reference of this type of engine anywhere else. In a book or the internet. >I was wondering what your thoughts on this are. Any help would be appreciated. > >CygnusXY@aol.com I've also heard of the engine. Its called a gas core nuclear rocket, or something. You've listed the design pretty well. (Also there is a design where the fission products are directly exausted out the back for thrust.) Because the materials are allowed to get so hot that they boil, they are at far higher temps. All else being equal, higher temps led to higher thrust efficency. But this idea is considered so hard to do, no ones been really interested in trying it for decades. i.e., if you need that high a thrust, you might as well put the effort into a laser pulsed fusion drive or something. The fusion systems would be far cleaner and safer, probably easier to develop, far less contraversial with the public, and provide more thrust efficency. Hope this helps. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Jan 22 12:38:38 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["931" "Thu" "22" "January" "1998" "20:40:54" "+0000" "Stephen Harley" "stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com" nil "24" "starship-design: Lightcraft" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA14273 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 12:38:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from monsoon.dial.pipex.net (monsoon.dial.pipex.net [158.43.128.69]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA14183 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 12:38:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 17655 invoked from network); 22 Jan 1998 20:38:26 -0000 Received: from af067.du.pipex.com (HELO dial.pipex.com) (193.130.245.67) by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 22 Jan 1998 20:38:26 -0000 Message-ID: <34C7AED4.DF5E280@dial.pipex.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2a4af4d1.34c6cda3@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Stephen Harley Content-Length: 930 From: Stephen Harley Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Kelly St CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Lightcraft Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:40:54 +0000 Hi, I wonder if this helps any, there was an article in a british science journal called the New Scientist in Jan this year which discribed some work being done at HELSTF in America on what are called lightcraft. The system is in the very early stages of being flight tested. It uses Lasers to turn explosively turn air into a kind of plasma which provides propulsion. If you haven't heard of it before I can write a quick summary for you, however from my very rough calculations to move a starship the size of your proposed Exlporer class with an inital acceleration of 2m/s per second you'd need a laser capable of 100,000 Gigawatt pulses, the best laser I've heard of can do 1MW. But then in fifty years time who knows how far this work may have advanced. -- stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com Grab your X-Wing and your R2 Unit and head for Plymouth Colony. The hyperspace jump co-ords are http://ds.dial.pipex.com/s.harley/ From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Jan 27 13:02:53 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1133" "Tue" "27" "January" "1998" "16:01:20" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "31" "starship-design: Re: Lightcraft" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA07795 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 13:02:43 -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 NAA07766 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 13:02:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <62513306.34ce4b22@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 1132 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Lightcraft Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:01:20 EST In a message dated 1/22/98 2:38:36 PM, stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com wrote: >Hi, > >I wonder if this helps any, there was an article in a british science journal >called the New Scientist in Jan this year which discribed some work being >done at HELSTF in America on what are called lightcraft. The system >is in the very early stages of being flight tested. It uses Lasers to turn >explosively turn air into a kind of plasma which provides propulsion. > >If you haven't heard of it before I can write a quick summary for you, >however from my very rough calculations to move a starship the size >of your proposed Exlporer class with an inital acceleration of 2m/s per >second you'd need a laser capable of 100,000 Gigawatt pulses, the best >laser I've heard of can do 1MW. > >But then in fifty years time who knows how far this work may have advanced. > >-- >stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com One of the ideas I had for the Exploer class designs fuel launchers was similar to that. But yeah the lasers would need to be massive! It might be doing it the hard way, but the design has promise as a surface to orbit launcher. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Jan 27 15:39:04 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1510" "Tue" "27" "January" "1998" "18:31:59" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "21" "starship-design: Depressing news" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA25532 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:39:03 -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 PAA25507 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:39:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5e676af5.34ce6e71@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 1509 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, DotarSojat@aol.com, HEDMARC@cellpro.cellpro.com, rickj@btio.com, leneski@chrome.gc.peachnet.edu, indy@stone.com, ronald.wurth@lmco.com Subject: starship-design: Depressing news Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:31:59 EST From the latest issue of Space News (Jan 26, 1998) in front of me, feeling rather bitter. The headline on Page 6 says, "NASA Curtails Manned Lunar, Mars Mission Work." It continues, "NASA's Office of Space Flight has been told to terminate all work on human space exploration other than the space shuttle and the international space station. The order will halt much of the preliminary design work on crewed lunar and Mars missions being performed by the Advanced Projects program at NASA headquarters here [Washington], in the Exploration Program Office at Johnson Space Center, Houston, and in the Exploration Transportation Office at Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Al. ... NASA field centers were directed to terminate all contracts associated with beyond-Earth-to-orbit activities such as human lunar or Mars exploration." The termination order was issued "to resolve funding shortfalls within the agency's 1998 budget. ... Those shortfalls include nearly $200 million that Office of Space Flight officials told the US Congress last November was needed to offset space station cost overruns, which are expected to total $800 million by late 2002. The space station budget is capped at $2.1 billion per year, plus reserves, through 2002, but most of the reserves have already been spent ... a slew of contracts already awarded, including several small business innovative research grants aimed at developing technologies and processes needed to send humans to Mars, will be cancelled." From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Jan 27 17:32:39 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["261" "Tue" "27" "January" "1998" "19:27:52" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "9" "RE: starship-design: Depressing news" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA06715 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:32:27 -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 RAA06697 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:32:24 -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 TAA05768; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:32:09 -0600 Message-Id: <199801280132.TAA05768@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5e676af5.34ce6e71@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 260 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Kelly St'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Depressing news Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:27:52 -0600 Uh-oh, that probably includes most of JPL's work on advanced engine designs. Well, we'll just have to wait and see how much noise is made by the various people/organizations who just lost their funding. I still think we can do this without NASA. Lee Parker From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Jan 27 20:55:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["388" "Tue" "27" "January" "1998" "23:55:18" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "15" "Re: RE: starship-design: Depressing news" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA02341 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 20:55:54 -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 UAA02326 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 20:55:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <15efdd28.34ceba38@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 387 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Depressing news Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 23:55:18 EST In a message dated 1/27/98 7:33:06 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Uh-oh, that probably includes most of JPL's work on advanced engine designs. >Well, we'll just have to wait and see how much noise is made by the various >people/organizations who just lost their funding. > >I still think we can do this without NASA. > >Lee Parker Easier to do without them, then with them. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Jan 27 23:18:09 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1036" "Tue" "27" "January" "1998" "23:17:31" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "26" "Re: RE: starship-design: Depressing news" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA22700 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 23:18:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA22690 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 23:18:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.163.58.180] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA7622 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 23:16:01 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lindberg@olywa.net (Lindberg) Content-Length: 1035 From: lindberg@olywa.net (Lindberg) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Depressing news Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 23:17:31 +0100 >In a message dated 1/27/98 7:33:06 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: > >>Uh-oh, that probably includes most of JPL's work on advanced engine designs. >>Well, we'll just have to wait and see how much noise is made by the various >>people/organizations who just lost their funding. >> >>I still think we can do this without NASA. >> >>Lee Parker > >Easier to do without them, then with them. > >Kelly sender new on list (name: nels lindberg) i saw the news too. in a sad, bitter way, it's probably a good thing, since it will focus nasa (which, as a slave to congress must operate in the short term) to focus on the things which they can do in the short term, such as the ISS etc. since there is no need to demonstrate the effiaccy of our rockets (read:ICBM's) we are unlikely to see a US-only return to the moon, let alone a martian landing. internat'l groups are likely to do so, but the space station is the baby step which will (hopefully) lead to private enterprise on the moon and international starships etc... Nels Lindberg From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Jan 28 08:57:03 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1700" "Wed" "28" "January" "1998" "11:56:10" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "40" "Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Depressing news" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA25988 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 08:56:49 -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 IAA25858 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 08:56:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <30558726.34cf632c@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 1699 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lindberg@olywa.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Depressing news Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:56:10 EST In a message dated 1/28/98 1:18:17 AM, lindberg@olywa.net wrote: >>>Uh-oh, that probably includes most of JPL's work on advanced engine designs. >>>Well, we'll just have to wait and see how much noise is made by the various >>>people/organizations who just lost their funding. >>> >>>I still think we can do this without NASA. >>> >>>Lee Parker >> >>Easier to do without them, then with them. >> >>Kelly >sender new on list (name: nels lindberg) >i saw the news too. in a sad, bitter way, it's probably a good thing, >since it will focus nasa (which, as a slave to congress must operate in the >short term) to focus on the things which they can do in the short term, >such as the ISS etc. since there is no need to demonstrate the effiaccy of >our rockets (read:ICBM's) we are unlikely to see a US-only return to the >moon, let alone a martian landing. internat'l groups are likely to do so, >but the space station is the baby step which will (hopefully) lead to >private enterprise on the moon and international starships etc... > >Nels Lindberg Ah, I hate top burst your buble, but one thing space station has conclusivly shown is the impracticality of inmternational projects. NASA estimates were that if it had to do the whole spacestation itself. It would cost NASA about 10% less then its current cost for its part of the current station program. International programs bring multinational overhead and contradictory political goals. This slows things down a lot, and raises costs. For example the US skylab station (in many ways larger and more capable then the current design) took us 18 months to plan, design, build, and launch. Regan started this station project in '84. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Jan 28 10:56:44 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2237" "Wed" "28" "January" "1998" "13:51:02" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "55" "starship-design: RE: questions" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA11784 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:56:17 -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 KAA11737 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:55:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:51:02 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Length: 2236 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'lindberg@olywa.net'" Cc: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: starship-design: RE: questions Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:51:02 -0500 >Subject: questions >Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:44:47 +0100 >From: lindberg@olywa.net (Lindberg) >To: lunar@sunsite.unc.edu > >David, >My name is Nels Lindberg. I have just signed up for the starshipdesign >mailing list. I have several questions. it appears to me that the >archived records of the mailing list only go up to about 1+1/2 years ago. >Is there a way I could catch up on what's happened on the list recently? >my next concern is this, i note that on the bottom of the LIT homepage, the >words "last revision July 15,1996" appear. I know that the site is under >construction, but the proliferation of interesting links which are broken >is disappointing. Is anyone even working on the site? If so, how soon will >the LIT site be back in top form? Finally, what are the requirements for a >serious paper on a subject; are bibliographies etc. required? That's all >for now, thank you for providing such a cool site. >Nels Lindberg Ah, for old newsletters try: http://www.xs4all.nl/~jvdl/sdnewsletters/ and ftp://ftp.efn.org/pub/users/stevev/starship-design/ Yes, the site has not been updated in some time. I have been considering ways to rectify this. The main issue is that all that is actively occurring right now with LIT is the mailing list. In addition, the main web space is on a machine which only I have an account on, and I can't give out other accounts. Here's what I've been thinking about: perhaps we can get a variety of accounts on one of the sites that offers free homepages (like geocities or something) and each person who wants to participate in the upkeep of a website would get one. We would provide links between the sections and each take care of the sections we're most interested in. The main "jumping off" point (with general information) and newsletter archive (perhaps we could do one of those threaded web-viewable mailing list archives) would be located at the SunSITE server. Any comments from the LIT gang? ------------------------------------------------------ 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 Jan 28 12:07:28 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2614" "Wed" "28" "January" "1998" "14:41:22" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "65" "Re: starship-design: RE: questions" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA03755 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:07:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo26.mail.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.154]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA03708 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:07:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5f02c4ce.34cf89e4@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 2613 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lindberg@olywa.net Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: RE: questions Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 14:41:22 EST In a message dated 1/28/98 12:57:15 PM, david@actionworld.com wrote: >>Subject: questions >>Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:44:47 +0100 >>From: lindberg@olywa.net (Lindberg) >>To: lunar@sunsite.unc.edu >> >>David, >>My name is Nels Lindberg. I have just signed up for the starshipdesign >>mailing list. I have several questions. it appears to me that the >>archived records of the mailing list only go up to about 1+1/2 years >ago. >>Is there a way I could catch up on what's happened on the list >recently? >>my next concern is this, i note that on the bottom of the LIT homepage, >the >>words "last revision July 15,1996" appear. I know that the site is >under >>construction, but the proliferation of interesting links which are >broken >>is disappointing. Is anyone even working on the site? If so, how soon >will >>the LIT site be back in top form? Finally, what are the requirements >for a >>serious paper on a subject; are bibliographies etc. required? That's >all >>for now, thank you for providing such a cool site. >>Nels Lindberg > >Ah, for old newsletters try: >http://www.xs4all.nl/~jvdl/sdnewsletters/ >and >ftp://ftp.efn.org/pub/users/stevev/starship-design/ > >Yes, the site has not been updated in some time. I have been >considering ways to rectify this. The main issue is that all that is >actively occurring right now with LIT is the mailing list. In addition, >the main web space is on a machine which only I have an account on, and >I can't give out other accounts. > >Here's what I've been thinking about: perhaps we can get a variety of >accounts on one of the sites that offers free homepages (like geocities >or something) and each person who wants to participate in the upkeep of >a website would get one. We would provide links between the sections >and each take care of the sections we're most interested in. The main >"jumping off" point (with general information) and newsletter archive >(perhaps we could do one of those threaded web-viewable mailing list >archives) would be located at the SunSITE server. > >Any comments from the LIT gang? Good idea. Would have helped a lot when I worked no the last draft. (Thou I wouldn't have the time to do as big a rework as I did on the last rework. So don't look at me!! `=[ ) One thought thou. Its a good idea to organise things in a heriarch, but that would seem to be dificult with parralell accounts. Also parrallel backups could be a problem. Not big things, but thought I'ld mention them. Oh, how would you transfer all those back newsletter. Frakly the earlier ones were better then our last years worth. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Jan 28 15:22:42 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2229" "Wed" "28" "January" "1998" "17:06:29" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "55" "RE: Re: RE: starship-design: Depressing news" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA01214 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:22:25 -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 PAA01056 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:22:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p22.gnt.com [204.49.68.227]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA07226; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:21:53 -0600 Message-Id: <199801282321.RAA07226@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <30558726.34cf632c@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 2228 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Kelly St'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: Re: RE: starship-design: Depressing news Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:06:29 -0600 Kelly, > Ah, I hate top burst your buble, but one thing space station has conclusivly > shown is the impracticality of inmternational projects. NASA estimates were > that if it had to do the whole spacestation itself. It would cost NASA about > 10% less then its current cost for its part of the current station program. > International programs bring multinational overhead and contradictory > political goals. This slows things down a lot, and raises costs. > > For example the US skylab station (in many ways larger and more capable then > the current design) took us 18 months to plan, design, build, and launch. > Regan started this station project in '84. Not only do I agree with your analysis, but if you want to really get right down to it, corporations are working for a profit and really tend to take a dim view of missing deadlines and objectives when missing said deadlines and objectives will cost them money (this neatly exempts most current aerospace contractors, neat how I did that, huh?). Anyway, as I have said before, the ONLY way we are going to get into space to stay is if there exists some clear commercial (profit) advantage to do so. At the moment the only ones I see are mining resources that are either more difficult to get at than on Earth or in more limited supply on Earth. Near Earth Asteroids seem to supply the answer. Not only do they provide an abundance of minerals, but most seem to be in a more concentrated and pure form. As an added bonus, precious metals seem to be a lot more common in asteroids than in the upper layers of the Earth's crust. One good find and you have just paid for your entire development effort. Lee Parker (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 Wed Jan 28 15:27:27 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1309" "Wed" "28" "January" "1998" "17:18:04" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "36" "RE: starship-design: RE: questions" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA05826 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:27:26 -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 PAA05799 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:27:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p22.gnt.com [204.49.68.227]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA07261; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:22:02 -0600 Message-Id: <199801282322.RAA07261@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5f02c4ce.34cf89e4@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 1308 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Kelly St'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: RE: questions Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:18:04 -0600 Kelly, > > One thought thou. Its a good idea to organise things in a heriarch, but that > would seem to be dificult with parralell accounts. Also parrallel backups > could be a problem. Not big things, but thought I'ld mention them. > > Oh, how would you transfer all those back newsletter. Frakly the earlier ones > were better then our last years worth. > Someone out there is already mirroring the LIT site. They don't seem to be on our mailing list though. there must be some simple method of simply copying off the entire site at regular intervals though. I've thought for a long time that this was a good idea. My aborted stab at a timeline was spurred by these thoughts. Okay, who wants to start the ball rolling? We need an outline of what goes on the new site first before we can break it up into parts. I will volunteer to take a part and also to preprocess documents into html for those who don't have html output. I can accept almost any graphic format and word processing format as well as spreadsheet and even PowerPoint presentations. Lee Parker (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke's "Third Law" From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Jan 28 20:26:39 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3627" "Wed" "28" "January" "1998" "22:24:26" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "74" "RE: Re: RE: starship-design: Depressing news" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA13606 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 20:26:38 -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 UAA13592 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 20:26:35 -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 WAA27700; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 22:26:25 -0600 Message-Id: <199801290426.WAA27700@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 3626 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Lindberg'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: Re: RE: starship-design: Depressing news Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 22:24:26 -0600 Nels, > -----Original Message----- > From: Lindberg [mailto:lindberg@olywa.net] > Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 10:13 AM > To: L. Parker > Subject: RE: Re: RE: starship-design: Depressing news > > > Part of the reason "rare metals" are valuable is because they're > rare. If far-sighted mining companies start bringing home monster piles of > platinum-group and other rare metals, said materials will drop in price as > the supply rises. This is ok if you have high startup costs and low > operation costs (like a sports stadium, for example), but less ok if there > is a constant source of vital, big-ticket expenses, such as getting > supplies and people to orbit and sending the mined material back to earth > so it can be used, not to mention the actual interception and mining of a > near asteriod. While a consortium of companies could concievably recover > their development costs with one big find, keeping the profit margin high > enough to satisfy stockholders would be difficult, and failing that, > backing out of an unprofitable space venture in one piece could be a blinky > business indeed. The short and long term effects to market prices of single finds of even large magnitudes aren't serious. However, the price of other metals that we can expect to produce in large quantities is a matter of concern. Fortunately, the market itself provides an answer. Typically, when a new metal or alloy first becomes available or becomes available in quantities sufficient to lower its price, the effect is short term. Within a few years, the lower price creates increased demand thereby shoring up the price of the metal, albeit at a lower level. Overall, however, the profitability of the commodity is much higher because the increased demand more than makes up for the lower cost. If this weren't true, no one would ever get into the mining business anywhere, much less in space. Space however presents a unique opportunity. One of the biggest problems with human development of space is access to space for both personnel and supplies. Everything must be sent up from the bottom of Earth's gravity well at enormous expense. The access to plentiful materials in orbit will eventually create demand for manufacturing in orbit so that those supplies don't have to be sent up to orbit in the first place - further increasing demand for raw materials in both quantity and kind. Its sort of a self fulfilling prophecy, but in order to make it work, it has to start somewhere. > On the other hand, private enterprise certainly could get to space > in an ultra-(cheap, safe, etc.) way, esp. compared to gov't. The problem > with private enterprise is that they need a motivation other than a spirit > of adventure or beuraucratic inertia (nasa) to put men and money into > space. Like I said, commercial concerns are motivated by profit. If they can see a potential for income in orbital operations, they will get there. More and more people are coming to understand the potentials involved, so many that it is only a matter of time now. I am no longer really very concerned with what happens with NASA or any of the other national space agencies, except insofar a they provide the basic technologies to make this possible. Lee Parker (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- Long experience has taught me not to believe in the limitations indicated by purely theoretical considerations. These - as we well know - are based on insufficient knowledge of all the relevant factors." Guglielmo Marconi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Jan 29 10:20:41 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1961" "Thu" "29" "January" "1998" "13:15:59" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "78" "Re: RE: Re: RE: starship-design: Depressing news" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA22779 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 10:19:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo28.mail.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.156]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA22744 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 10:19:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id UKQJa10180 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:15:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <7c61b4fa.34d0c767@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 1960 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: starship-design: Depressing news Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:15:59 EST In a message dated 1/28/98 5:22:43 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Kelly, > > > >> Ah, I hate top burst your buble, but one thing space station has > >conclusivly > >> shown is the impracticality of inmternational projects. NASA estimates > >were > >> that if it had to do the whole spacestation itself. It would cost NASA > >about > >> 10% less then its current cost for its part of the current station > >program. > >> International programs bring multinational overhead and contradictory > >> political goals. This slows things down a lot, and raises costs. > >> > >> For example the US skylab station (in many ways larger and more capable > >then > >> the current design) took us 18 months to plan, design, build, and launch. > >> Regan started this station project in '84. > > > >Not only do I agree with your analysis, but if you want to really get right > >down to it, corporations are working for a profit and really tend to take a > >dim view of missing deadlines and objectives when missing said deadlines and > >objectives will cost them money (this neatly exempts most current aerospace > >contractors, neat how I did that, huh?). > > > >Anyway, as I have said before, the ONLY way we are going to get into space > >to stay is if there exists some clear commercial (profit) advantage to do > >so. At the moment the only ones I see are mining resources that are either > >more difficult to get at than on Earth or in more limited supply on Earth. > >Near Earth Asteroids seem to supply the answer. Not only do they provide an > >abundance of minerals, but most seem to be in a more concentrated and pure > >form. As an added bonus, precious metals seem to be a lot more common in > >asteroids than in the upper layers of the Earth's crust. One good find and > >you have just paid for your entire development effort. > > > >Lee Parker Agreed! Thou bringing down a thousand tons of gold or platinum could really crater the market. ;) Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Jan 29 10:23:08 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1473" "Thu" "29" "January" "1998" "13:16:01" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "66" "Re: RE: starship-design: RE: questions" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA24591 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 10:23:03 -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 KAA24566 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 10:22:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id 0JBWa17896; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:16:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <10264f7b.34d0c764@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 1472 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: RE: questions Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:16:01 EST In a message dated 1/28/98 5:28:13 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Kelly, > > > >> > >> One thought thou. Its a good idea to organise things in a heriarch, but > >that > >> would seem to be dificult with parralell accounts. Also parrallel backups > >> could be a problem. Not big things, but thought I'ld mention them. > >> > >> Oh, how would you transfer all those back newsletter. Frakly the earlier > >ones > >> were better then our last years worth. > >> > > > >Someone out there is already mirroring the LIT site. They don't seem to be > >on our mailing list though. there must be some simple method of simply > >copying off the entire site at regular intervals though. > > > >I've thought for a long time that this was a good idea. My aborted stab at a > >timeline was spurred by these thoughts. > > > >Okay, who wants to start the ball rolling? We need an outline of what goes > >on the new site first before we can break it up into parts. I will volunteer > >to take a part and also to preprocess documents into html for those who > >don't have html output. I can accept almost any graphic format and word > >processing format as well as spreadsheet and even PowerPoint presentations. > > > >Lee Parker Kevin Houston (former member?) has a mirror of LIT (http://www.urly- bird.com/LIT/). Actually it has some parts not in the Sunsite copy. Is that who you mean? I'm in the middle of trying to find a job, so I'm a little too destracted to help. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Jan 29 11:46:20 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1874" "Thu" "29" "January" "1998" "14:41:23" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "48" "RE: starship-design: RE: questions" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA25008 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 11:46:19 -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 LAA24969 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 11:46:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 14:41:24 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Length: 1873 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'L. Parker'" Cc: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: RE: starship-design: RE: questions Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 14:41:23 -0500 Well, the old site was 5 megs and the new site is 4. A lot of stuff from the old site is missing on the new site, so I'd say in total LIT is around 6 megs plus however big all of the uoregon mailing list archives are. Really, the problem is not space: the space on SunSITE is effectively unlimited, there is no quota. The main problem is accessability, because it really is a group project and could best be updated by a group. The reason I'm picturing using something like GeoCities (rather than have everyone keep their own stuff on their personal website) is that if someone wants to quit working on the site with us, we won't have any trouble - all they need to do is pass on the GeoCities account to whoever wants to take over their portion. The question of site heirarchy/layout has been raised in such a situation. I need to think about this some more, but I'm sure there is a solution. ------------------------------------------------------ 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] > Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 6:20 PM > To: 'David Levine' > Subject: RE: starship-design: RE: questions > > David, > > How much space is taken up by the LIT site currently? I have several > megabytes of space on a server that I am paying for but not currently > using... > > Lee Parker > (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 Jan 29 13:24:48 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1375" "Thu" "29" "January" "1998" "13:24:07" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "31" "RE: starship-design: RE: questions" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA09740 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:24:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA09650 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:24:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.163.58.179] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA8680 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:22:28 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lindberg@olywa.net (Lindberg) Content-Length: 1374 From: lindberg@olywa.net (Lindberg) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: RE: questions Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:24:07 +0100 David, Lee, I DO have the a little extra time to work on the page, but have barely ok page design/computer skills, and so I shouldn't do anything like take on a big or complicated section until I get better at this sort of thing. Also, does anyone have the stuff that was behind the broken links? did said stuff never get posted at all? Using Geocites sounds like an good idea to me. -Nels Lindberg __________________________________________________ >Well, the old site was 5 megs and the new site is 4. A lot of stuff >from the old site is missing on the new site, so I'd say in total LIT is >around 6 megs plus however big all of the uoregon mailing list archives >are. > >Really, the problem is not space: the space on SunSITE is effectively >unlimited, there is no quota. The main problem is accessability, >because it really is a group project and could best be updated by a >group. > >The reason I'm picturing using something like GeoCities (rather than >have everyone keep their own stuff on their personal website) is that if >someone wants to quit working on the site with us, we won't have any >trouble - all they need to do is pass on the GeoCities account to >whoever wants to take over their portion. > >The question of site heirarchy/layout has been raised in such a >situation. I need to think about this some more, but I'm sure there is >a solution. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Jan 29 13:56:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2386" "Thu" "29" "January" "1998" "16:58:18" "-0500" "jimaclem@juno.com" "jimaclem@juno.com" nil "68" "starship-design: Re: questions" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA02459 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:56:55 -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 NAA02437 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:56:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jimaclem@juno.com) by x18.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id QeC24284; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:53:57 EST Message-ID: <19980129.165818.13230.0.jimaclem@juno.com> References: X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-4,6-60 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: jimaclem@juno.com Content-Length: 2385 From: jimaclem@juno.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: david@actionworld.com Cc: lparker@cacaphony.net, "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'"@staff.juno.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: questions Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:58:18 -0500 The idea of using Geocities is great! My html skills are iffy as well, but I try hard! We should do this. Jim A. Clem, B.S.E. On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 14:41:23 -0500 David Levine writes: >Well, the old site was 5 megs and the new site is 4. A lot of stuff >from the old site is missing on the new site, so I'd say in total LIT >is >around 6 megs plus however big all of the uoregon mailing list >archives >are. > >Really, the problem is not space: the space on SunSITE is effectively >unlimited, there is no quota. The main problem is accessability, >because it really is a group project and could best be updated by a >group. > >The reason I'm picturing using something like GeoCities (rather than >have everyone keep their own stuff on their personal website) is that >if >someone wants to quit working on the site with us, we won't have any >trouble - all they need to do is pass on the GeoCities account to >whoever wants to take over their portion. > >The question of site heirarchy/layout has been raised in such a >situation. I need to think about this some more, but I'm sure there >is >a solution. >------------------------------------------------------ >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] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 6:20 PM >> To: 'David Levine' >> Subject: RE: starship-design: RE: questions >> >> David, >> >> How much space is taken up by the LIT site currently? I have several >> megabytes of space on a server that I am paying for but not >currently >> using... >> >> Lee Parker >> (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. >> > _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jan 30 11:52:35 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1400" "Fri" "30" "January" "1998" "14:52:16" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "36" "Re: RE: starship-design: RE: questions" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA09030 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:52:31 -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 LAA09013 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:52:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id 8QUFa29148 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:52:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 1399 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: RE: questions Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:52:16 EST In a message dated 1/29/98 2:06:05 PM, david@actionworld.com wrote: >Well, the old site was 5 megs and the new site is 4. A lot of stuff >from the old site is missing on the new site, so I'd say in total LIT is >around 6 megs plus however big all of the uoregon mailing list archives >are. > >Really, the problem is not space: the space on SunSITE is effectively >unlimited, there is no quota. The main problem is accessability, >because it really is a group project and could best be updated by a >group. > >The reason I'm picturing using something like GeoCities (rather than >have everyone keep their own stuff on their personal website) is that if >someone wants to quit working on the site with us, we won't have any >trouble - all they need to do is pass on the GeoCities account to >whoever wants to take over their portion. Good point, you might want to check to see if the accounts can be set up under a master account. That way if someone drops out without warning the account could be transfered. >The question of site heirarchy/layout has been raised in such a >situation. I need to think about this some more, but I'm sure there is >a solution. If ther some higher account over the others. The "administrator account" could set up the heirarchy and give given accounts access to given directories. >------------------------------------------------------ >David Levine Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Feb 1 05:57:11 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7584" "Sat" "31" "January" "1998" "14:36:36" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "163" "starship-design: Antiproton Catalyzed Microfission/Fusion Engines and Pathfinder class ships" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA00775 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 05:57:06 -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 FAA00756 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 05:57:03 -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 HAA05831 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 07:56:59 -0600 Message-Id: <199802011356.HAA05831@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 7583 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Antiproton Catalyzed Microfission/Fusion Engines and Pathfinder class ships Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 14:36:36 -0600 There seem to be a lot of new members on the group and I have condensed some of the ideas I have posted with some supporting evidence as well as a new conclusion for their benefit. As most of you who have been here awhile know, I currently believe that the ACMF engine is the most likely candidate for spacecraft propulsion for the next twenty or thirty years. I have been studying the limited information available on the engine in an attempt to define a ship around it. The first thing I have considered is total dry mass requirements of the exploratory vessel in order to compare them with the payload mass fraction of the ICAN II concept vehicle which was based on a single ACMF engine. The table below gives the mass distribution of the ICAN vehicle. Component Mass (metric tons) Ion Driver 100 Thrust Shell 20 Spacecraft Structure 30 Antiproton Storage Rings (20) 5 Neutron Shielding 45 Power Processing and Radiator 100 Payload 100 Total Dry Mass 400 Using this as a guideline I compared it to several existing classes of research and exploration vessel; the U.S. Navy's USNS Pathfinder (T-AGS 60) Oceanographic Ship, the Research Submarine USS Dolphin (AGSS 555), and the Deep Submergence Craft NR-1. These vessels are designed to perform research and survey operations far from support for extended periods of time and should be a representative sample of what kind of mass requirements such an exploration vessel would need. There are some obvious differences and exceptions because of the difference in their environment and missions, but I think on the whole the differences with respect to mass requirements will balance out. Here is a summary of the basic characteristics of the comparison vessels: General Characteristics, NR-1 Deep Submergence Craft Primary Function: Deep submergence research and engineering vehicle Hull Number: NR-1 Class: no class; this is a one-of-a-kind ship Builder: General Dynamics (Electric Boat Division) Power Plant: One nuclear reactor, one turbo-alternator; Two motors (external), two propellers, Four ducted thrusters (two horizontal, two vertical) Length: 150 feet (45.72 meters) Displacement: 400 tons (360 metric tons) Diameter: 12 feet (4.18 meters) Maximum Operating Depth: 2,375 feet (724 meters) Crew: 2 officer, 3 enlisted, 2 scientists Armament: None Date Deployed: Oct. 27, 1969 General Characteristics, Research Submarine Primary Function: Deep submergence research and development submarine Hull Number: AGSS-555 Class: No class; this is a one-of-a-kind ship Builder: Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Power Plant: Diesel/Electric; Two GM 12-cylinder, 425 HP engines Length: 165 feet (50.3 meters) Displacement: 950 tons (861.8 metric tons) Diameter: 18 feet (5.5 meters) Operating Depth: 3,000 feet (915 meters) Crew: 5 officer, 46 enlisted, and up to 5 scientists Armament: None Date Deployed: 17 August 1968 General Characteristics, Pathfinder Class Builders: T-AGS 60 to 64; Halter Marine Moss Point, Miss Power Plant: Diesel electric, twin screw propellers driven through Z-drives, 6,000 shaft horsepower; 1,500 horsepower bow thruster Length: 328.5 feet (100.1 meters) Beam: 58 feet (17.7 meters) Displacement: 4,762 tons (4,329 metric tons) Speed: 16 kts (18.4 mph, 29.6 kph) Range: 10,400 nautical miles (12,000 miles, 19,300 kilometers) cruising Ships: No Homeports assigned USNS Pathfinder (T-AGS 60) USNS Sumner (T-AGS 61) USNS Bowditch (T-AGS 62) USNS Henson (T-AGS 63) To Be Named (T-AGS 64) Crew: 25 ship's crew and 27 scientists From the examples of current research vessels it is easy to see that the NR-1 has a crew complement that is probably the minimum that could be considered for a Pathfinder mission, while the USS Pathfinder and USS Dolphin are probably more appropriate for Survey class (which is indeed their mission). The mass of the NR-1 is given as 400 tons, much of which is ship power and structure which our first table already took into account. A good first estimate then is about 100 tons. This figure gives us a total payload fraction of 100 tons which is what the ICAN ACMF engine is designed to put in Mars orbit. In other words we could send a Pathfinder to Mars with first generation ACMF engines in about 45 days. This mission generates a total delta v of 120 km/sec or approximately 2,500 times less than what is necessary for a one way mission to a star or 5,000 times less than what would be necessary for a two way mission. Clearly, we will need more thrust than even the ACMF engine is capable of producing if we are going to reach the stars. So what options are available? Is there hope of improving on these figures? The following table summarizes the available technologies: Propulsion Type Specific Impulse [sec] Thrust-to-Weight Ratio Chemical Bipropellant 200 - 410 .01 - 100 Ion-Electrostatic 1200 - 5000 10-6 - 10-4 Nuclear Fission 500 - 860 .01 - 30 Nuclear Fusion 10+4 - >10+5 .01 - 10(?) Antimatter Annihilation >10+7 .01 - 10(?) The ACMF engine is somewhere between fission and fusion in performance with an Isp of 10+3. Obviously, we have room to improve here with follow on generations of engines utilizing advances in fusion fuels. Simply upgrading the engine to another fuel can produce significant increases in available energy. The table below shows the energy available from various fusion reactions. Fusion Reactions Among Various Light Elements D+D -> T (1.01 MeV) + p (3.02 MeV) (50%) -> He3 (0.82 MeV) + n (2.45 MeV) (50%) <- most abundant fuel -> He4 + about 20 MeV of gamma rays (about 0.0001%; depends somewhat on temperature.) (most other low-probability branches are omitted below) D+T -> He4 (3.5 MeV) + n (14.1 MeV) <-easiest to achieve D+He3 -> He4 (3.6 MeV) + p (14.7 MeV) <-easiest aneutronic reaction "aneutronic" is explained below. T+T -> He4 + 2n + 11.3 MeVHe3+T -> He4 + p + n + 12.1 MeV (51%) -> He4 (4.8) + D (9.5) (43%) -> He4 (0.5) + n (1.9) + p (11.9) (6%) <- via He5 decay p+Li6 -> He4 (1.7) + He3 (2.3) <- another aneutronic reaction p+Li7 -> 2 He4 + 17.3 MeV (20%) -> Be7 + n -1.6 MeV (80%) <- endothermic, not good. D+Li6 -> 2He4 + 22.4 MeV <- also aneutronic, but you get D-D reactions too. p+B11 -> 3 He4 + 8.7 MeV <- harder to do, but more energy than p+Li6 n+Li6 -> He4 (2.1) + T (2.7) <- this can convert n's to T's n+Li7 -> He4 + T + n - some energy As you can see, utilizing either the D+He3 or D+Li6 reactions can significantly improve the available energy and thereby increase the Isp from second and third generation ACMF engines. Is it enough? No, even if you assume that the additional energy is directly convertible into additional Isp, at best we could only expect an Isp of around 50,000 seconds which although good enough to get a smaller, unmanned payload there, isn't enough to get our 400 ton Pathfinder there. In short, even the ACMF engine is not going to get us to the stars in any reasonable length of time. It seems we are going to have to wait for antimatter engines or some exotic concept not yet invented. Sigh. Lee Parker (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.... -- Carl Zwanzig From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Feb 1 14:09:28 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1502" "Sun" "1" "February" "1998" "14:08:44" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "31" "Re: starship-design: Antiproton Catalyzed Microfission/Fusion Engines and Pathfinder class ships" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA05161 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 14:09:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA05130 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 14:09:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.163.58.98] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA1658 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 14:09:07 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lindberg@olywa.net (Lindberg) Content-Length: 1501 From: lindberg@olywa.net (Lindberg) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Antiproton Catalyzed Microfission/Fusion Engines and Pathfinder class ships Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 14:08:44 +0100 Lee, the info on the properties of various light-element reactions was very nice, thanks. A question - how does an antiproton-catalyzed microfission/fusion engine work? A picture is worth a thousand words, so a link to a website (if it exists) explaining it would be better than a long, difficult text-only explanation via email. Also, how is the ACMF superior to the fusion rocket described for the "explorer" class starship on the LIT site? -Nels Lindberg ________________________________________ >There seem to be a lot of new members on the group and I have condensed some >of the ideas I have posted with some supporting evidence as well as a new >conclusion for their benefit. > >As most of you who have been here awhile know, I currently believe that the >ACMF engine is the most likely candidate for spacecraft propulsion for the >next twenty or thirty years. I have been studying the limited information >available on the engine in an attempt to define a ship around it. The first >thing I have considered is total dry mass requirements of the exploratory >vessel in order to compare them with the payload mass fraction of the ICAN >II concept vehicle which was based on a single ACMF engine. > >The table below gives the mass distribution of the ICAN vehicle. > >In short, even the ACMF engine is not going to get us to the stars in any >reasonable length of time. It seems we are going to have to wait for >antimatter engines or some exotic concept not yet invented. Sigh. > >Lee Parker From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Feb 2 08:28:21 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["303" "Mon" "2" "February" "1998" "11:21:08" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "13" "starship-design: Re: adding your sight" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA27641 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 08:28:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo25.mail.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.153]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA27578 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 08:28:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id LNRIa13841; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:21:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 302 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: jds@inetarena.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: adding your sight Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:21:08 EST In a message dated 2/2/98 12:22:56 AM, you wrote: >I am going to add your sight to my sight >i am building a list to a large number of science related sights > >James DeMaris Great! We may be upgrading and relocating the site in the near future, and will inform you if that happens. Kelly Starks From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Feb 2 16:38:48 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2280" "Mon" "2" "February" "1998" "18:37:39" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "53" "RE: starship-design: Antiproton Catalyzed Microfission/Fusion Engines andPathfinder class ships" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA11128 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 16:38:28 -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 QAA11098 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 16:38:24 -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 SAA04589 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 18:38:10 -0600 Message-Id: <199802030038.SAA04589@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 2279 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Antiproton Catalyzed Microfission/Fusion Engines andPathfinder class ships Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 18:37:39 -0600 Nels et al, > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of Lindberg > Sent: Sunday, February 01, 1998 7:09 AM > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: Antiproton Catalyzed Microfission/Fusion > Engines andPathfinder class ships > > > Lee, > the info on the properties of various light-element reactions was very > nice, thanks. A question - how does an antiproton-catalyzed > microfission/fusion engine work? A picture is worth a thousand words, so a > link to a website (if it exists) explaining it would be better than a long, > difficult text-only explanation via email. Also, how is the ACMF superior > to the fusion rocket described for the "explorer" class starship on the LIT > site? -Nels Lindberg Of course there is a link: http://antimatter.phys.psu.edu/ICAN-II_Paper/index.html but to be brief, this isn't really a rocket, it is a much enhanced version of the Orion concept. Instead of throwing large inefficient nuclear bombs out the back, it sets off small, semi-contained micro-fission/fusion reactions instead. The principle however is still the same, there is a "thrust shell" rather than a pusher plate, but the shock absorbers, etc. are all still there. In answer to your question, it isn't superior to a fusion rocket, although it does come close to providing the same Isp and thrust. However; we DON'T know how to build a fusion rocket, we DO know how to build this, and it will certainly suffice to get us around the solar system for a few years. Meanwhile we will be accumulating knowledge on actual deep space performance of "fusion" drives and the ancillary systems. One must learn to walk before you can learn to run. Lee Parker (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo------ Steam ships were not created by mastering the technologies of sails and riggings. Jet aircraft did not result from mastering piston-propeller aircraft. Transistors were not invented by mastering vacuum tubes. Photocopiers did not result from mastering carbon paper. And breakthrough space drives will not be created by mastering rocket engines. - Marc G. Millis From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Feb 3 12:09:09 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2433" "Tue" "3" "February" "1998" "14:08:15" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "54" "starship-design: Commercial Space Market" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA22728 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:09:00 -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 MAA22648 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:08:56 -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 OAA13172 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:08:52 -0600 Message-Id: <199802032008.OAA13172@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 2432 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Commercial Space Market Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:08:15 -0600 I have spent a great deal of time lately studying the "Commercial Space Transportation Study" which was released a few years ago. As I view the commercial use of space to be the only hope for getting us into space and keeping us there, I follow news items dealing with the commercialization of space fairly closely. This was reported on CNN Interactive this afternoon - Lee Parker From the Associated Press: Russia sees huge profit in commercial satellites February 3, 1998 Web posted at: 2:40 p.m. EST (1940 GMT) MOSCOW (AP) -- Russia will earn up to $1 billion from commercial space satellite launches within the next few years and profits will soar to as much as $30 billion over the next 10 years, an official predicted Monday. Yuri Koptev, the director of the Russian Space Agency, told the ITAR-Tass news agency that the three most promising fields in the commercial market are the manufacture of satellites, launch services and infrastructure for ground control. The market's capacity will be $25-30 billion in the next 10 years, Koptev said. Putting satellites into orbit using some 1,200 booster rockets alone will yield $20-22 billion, he said. Russia launched 48 commercial satellites last year, 18 on behalf of U.S. firms. In addition to the American satellites, the Russians also sent up satellites for China, Germany and Luxembourg. Russia's space program has been struggling due to the loss of large Soviet-era subsidies, and officials have sought to raise revenues by launching commercial satellites. The Russians introduced the new Svobodny space center in the southeast last year, which is intended to handle large numbers of commercial satellite launches. The Russians also have launch facilities in Plesetsk in the northwest, and in Baikonur, in neighboring Kazakhstan. Copyright 1998 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo------ Steam ships were not created by mastering the technologies of sails and riggings. Jet aircraft did not result from mastering piston-propeller aircraft. Transistors were not invented by mastering vacuum tubes. Photocopiers did not result from mastering carbon paper. And breakthrough space drives will not be created by mastering rocket engines. - Marc G. Millis From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Feb 4 19:19:42 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1327" "Wed" "4" "February" "1998" "21:16:15" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "28" "starship-design: Hardware/Software advice" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA08969 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 19:19:33 -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 TAA08500 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 19:19:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p23.gnt.com [204.49.68.228]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA24364 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 21:18:25 -0600 Message-Id: <199802050318.VAA24364@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 1326 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Hardware/Software advice Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 21:16:15 -0600 I am looking for input on a couple of items. First of all, I need an internal listserv capability, preferably something that supports dial up accounts rather than requiring a direct connection and should run under Windows 95 ( I know, I know), it would be nice if it would also allow me to put up a full mail server in house eventually. I am looking at several different programs including an NT variant of sendmail. If I have to I can always devote one of the machines hear to Linux, but I would rather not. Unless, of course David can convince me .... Second, I need a dial up router that supports X2. K56 won't work. It does not have to be a dual line (in fact I would prefer it wasn't, I can't afford another phone line). It should support dial out access from a network as a shared modem as well as fax support. Lee Parker (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo------ Steam ships were not created by mastering the technologies of sails and riggings. Jet aircraft did not result from mastering piston-propeller aircraft. Transistors were not invented by mastering vacuum tubes. Photocopiers did not result from mastering carbon paper. And breakthrough space drives will not be created by mastering rocket engines. - Marc G. Millis From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 5 17:53:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3280" "Thu" "5" "February" "1998" "19:50:19" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "92" "starship-design: FW: Warning!" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA15202 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 17:52:15 -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 RAA14468 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 17:50:51 -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 TAA28218; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 19:50:41 -0600 Message-Id: <199802060150.TAA28218@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01BD326F.5586D3E0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 3279 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" , "'Crow, Katie'" , "'Folkner, Marolyn'" , "'Hays, Freda'" , "'Lafleur, Mike'" , "'Luther, Kem'" , "'Margaret Boyer'" , "'Moore, Susan'" , "'Sutkin, LaFaye'" , "'Wiley, Vance'" , "'Witt, Jerry'" Subject: starship-design: FW: Warning! Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 19:50:19 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BD326F.5586D3E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thought this was important to all listserv users: On Saturday, 24 January 1998, Naval Air Station, Joint Reserve Base, New Orleans' Quarterdeck received a telephone call from an individual identifying himself as an AT&T Service Technician that was running a test on our telephone lines. He stated that to complete the test the QMOW should touch nine (9), zero (0), pound sign (#) and hang up. Luckily, the QMOW was suspicious and refused. Upon contacting the telephone company we were informed that by pushing 9,0,# you end up giving the individual that called you, access to your telephone line and allows them to place a long distant call with the charges appearing on your bill. We were further informed that this scam has been oringinating from many local jails/prisons. - Please "pass" the word". karen2 ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BD326F.5586D3E0 Content-Type: text/html; name="ATT00000.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ATT00000.html" Warning!

Thought this was = important to all listserv users:

On Saturday, 24 = January 1998, Naval Air Station, Joint Reserve Base,  
New Orleans' = Quarterdeck received a telephone call from an individual
identifying himself = as an AT&T Service Technician that was running a
test on our = telephone lines. He stated that to complete the test the   =
QMOW should touch = nine (9), zero (0), pound sign (#) and hang up.

Luckily, the QMOW was = suspicious and refused. Upon contacting the telephone
company we were = informed that by pushing 9,0,# you end up giving the
individual that = called you, access to your telephone line and allows them
to place a long = distant call with the charges appearing on your bill. We
were further = informed that this scam has been oringinating from many local
jails/prisons.

     - Please "pass" the = word".

karen2

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BD326F.5586D3E0-- From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 5 19:23:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["256" "Thu" "5" "February" "1998" "19:24:23" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "5" "starship-design: FW: Warning!" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA00212 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 19:23:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (hexadecimal.uoregon.edu [128.223.32.56]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA00192 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 19:23:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA11853; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 19:23:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA08511; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 19:24:23 -0800 Message-Id: <199802060324.TAA08511@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <199802060150.TAA28218@hurricane.gnt.net> References: <199802060150.TAA28218@hurricane.gnt.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.40 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Length: 255 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: FW: Warning! Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 19:24:23 -0800 As the list maintainer of starship-design, I strongly object to the use of the list for purposes that are not relevant to its topic. Do not post chain letters, urban legends, humor pieces, or other material that does not have to do with starship design. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Feb 9 20:53:37 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2409" "Mon" "9" "February" "1998" "20:52:29" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "40" "starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA28340 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 20:53:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA28315 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 20:53:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.163.58.161] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA7949 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 20:52:13 -0800 Message-ID: <34DF5E7D.411D@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 2408 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 20:52:29 +0100 list's been quiet lately, so i thought id float this one. the idea of a manned starship mission holds considerable appeal in terms of flexiblilty, public relations, amount of returned data, and sheer coolness. However these advantages are outweighed by the fact that manned starflight is not only very difficult, but dangerous besides. given how much cleverer our computers are getting, letting a purpose-built AI run things is not unreasonable, and in fifty years, AI's may be even better 'astronauts' than humans, not being subject to our frailties and psychosies. On the other hand, if we decided to -really- explore a starsystem, manned missions would eventually be desireable. machine-starships would/could still play a major role in a manned mission. Here are some uses i cooked up for a fleet of automated starships which could precede a manned flight, if we decide to send people. Obviously, they could collect ALOT of data and send it back home. This would give the manned mission half an idea of what to expect. Deceleration/Return acceleration assist. a) a single ship carries extra fuel along with its exploration stuff, this craft might be limited in amount of exploration it could do, maybe just telescopes, no landers. b) along with exploraton duties, a fleet of ships carries extra fuel & supplies, prehaps pressing their engine magnets into sevice as mass drivers thowing fuel to a decelerating/accelerating manned craft, as proposed for the -explorer- class starships. c) an unmanned ship beams (stored solar?) power to a manned sailship. this one could do lots of subsequent starships, manned and unmanned. however sail power has its troubles. If unmanned ships were nearly identical to their manned counterparts (same engines, superstucture, etc.) they could be scavenged for parts, eliminating the need for the manned mission to carry heavy, bulky construction equipment. This provides a major safety factor for the astronauts. Finally, we could, after extensive unmanned exploration, decide that a particular starsystem is not interesting enough to warrant manned exploration (or too hazardous) and move on to the next star. Of course, unmanned is the only choice for distances greater than 50 ly, given realistic estimates of technology over the next 100 years, but even closer than that, robots hold advantages over people. please pick apart my ideas. Nels Lindberg From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Feb 11 02:56:34 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["905" "Tue" "10" "February" "1998" "20:23:07" "-0600" "Jonathan J Jay" "jon_jay@juno.com" nil "22" "Re: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA21916 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 02:56:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from m16.boston.juno.com (m16.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.192]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA21905 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 02:56:13 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jon_jay@juno.com) by m16.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id VgC11480; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:22:09 EST Message-ID: <19980210.202307.14326.1.jon_jay@juno.com> References: <34DF5E7D.411D@olywa.net> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3-5,7-9,11-14 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: jon_jay@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Content-Length: 904 From: jon_jay@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lindberg@olywa.net Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 20:23:07 -0600 I agree that manned missions would be dangerous, but I also believe that it would be necessary due to our current standings on improvisation and creativity compared to that of computers. I think that there are ways to have the best of both worlds, also. There could be a crew under suspended animation with the AI in control of the ship. As it says at the LIT homepage, if the systems slowly failed the crew under suspended animation would die with the ship around them, but if there was some kind of early warning system that would warn them of potential system failure, it could awaken a few or all of the crew in time to fix the problem. Jon _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Feb 11 08:31:14 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1232" "Wed" "11" "February" "1998" "11:25:49" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "27" "starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA08686 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:31:11 -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 IAA08664 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:31:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <14VN3Q2V>; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:25:50 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Length: 1231 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:25:49 -0500 Well, one of the initial assumptions we made was that some kind of simple unmanned mission (a fly-through) had already been sent to the target. Basically, it was decided early on that designing a manned mission would be the more interesting challenge and so we could decide on any arbitrary circumstances that would allow us to design one. The only caveat being that we discuss current technology or technology within the realm of possibility over the next fifty or so years (in other words, no FTL, etc). Of course, there are all sorts of reasons we WON'T be sending manned missions to other stars in the next fifty years (ah, how nice to be proven wrong, though!) - economic being a big one - but for the sake of argument, and for the sake of actually designing something, we must ignore those reasons. Another alternative would be to push the mission further into the future, but the further away we make it in time, the more speculative things get. ------------------------------------------------------ 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 Feb 11 10:48:23 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["743" "Wed" "11" "February" "1998" "18:36:18" "+0000" "A West" "andrew@hmm.u-net.com" nil "17" "Re: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA24654 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:48:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mserv1a.u-net.net (mserv1a.u-net.net [195.102.240.34]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA24626 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:48:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from hmm.u-net.com [195.102.195.40] by mserv1a.u-net.net with smtp (Exim 1.73 #4) id 0y2h2k-0001s3-00; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:37:59 +0000 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980211183618.007ad840@mail.u-net.com> X-Sender: andrew-hmm@mail.u-net.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <19980210.202307.14326.1.jon_jay@juno.com> References: <34DF5E7D.411D@olywa.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: A West Content-Length: 742 From: A West Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: jon_jay@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:36:18 +0000 At 20:23 10/02/98 -0600, you wrote: > I agree that manned missions would be dangerous, but I also believe >that it would be necessary due to our current standings on improvisation >and creativity compared to that of computers. "the capacity of a computer chip will double every year" Gordon Moore 1965 Since then, every year to 18 months, computer power has doubled. If this trend continues, we will unimaginably powerful computers in 50 years time - maybe like comparing the on-board computers in the space shuttle to the PC I am sending this mail with.... Never underestimate the potential computers have - soon they will reach the sort of speeds you might need to write a program that can improvise and be creative.... Andrew West From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Feb 11 11:01:21 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1335" "Wed" "11" "February" "1998" "13:56:09" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "33" "RE: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA05308 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:01:20 -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 LAA05280 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:01:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <14VN3QLQ>; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:56:10 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Length: 1334 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:56:09 -0500 Heh, the PC you are sending e-mail with might possibly be the more powerful of the two in that comparison. But that's a quibble. The real question is that when you look at something like Moore's Law, can you count on it indefinately? Just because a trend has happened up to a certain point doesn't mean it will happen forever - there can be real limits to the design of a chip - the speed of light being one off-hand... ------------------------------------------------------ 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: A West[SMTP:andrew@hmm.u-net.com] > Subject: Re: starship-design: unmanned missions > > "the capacity of a computer chip will double every year" Gordon Moore > 1965 > > Since then, every year to 18 months, computer power has doubled. > If this trend continues, we will unimaginably powerful computers in 50 > years time - maybe like comparing the on-board computers in the space > shuttle to the PC I am sending this mail with.... > Never underestimate the potential computers have - soon they will > reach the > sort of speeds you might need to write a program that can improvise > and be > creative.... > > Andrew West > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Feb 11 14:38:59 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1315" "Wed" "11" "February" "1998" "16:24:24" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "31" "RE: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA27728 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:38:37 -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 OAA27717 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:38:34 -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 QAA15691; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:38:12 -0600 Message-Id: <199802112238.QAA15691@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 1314 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'David Levine'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:24:24 -0600 David, > Heh, the PC you are sending e-mail with might possibly be the more > powerful of the two in that comparison. But that's a quibble. I think they have upgraded the shuttle's computers in the last few years, so the PC may no longer be more powerful. Either Kelly or Kevin posted something about it re a similar comment I made last year. I do know that when they were originally putting together the specifications for the Space Station Freedom's computer systems they were PCs running LINUX (they wanted a clear, commercially available upgrade path). I'm not sure what the International Space Station ended up with. Anybody know? There is a definite limit to how long Moore's Law will hold. Besides the speed of light there are other factors which we are already beginning to hit. Electron tunneling is just one. You can only make a circuit so small before the electrons in one circuit will just arbitrarily jump into an adjoining circuit. Kind of produces messy results... 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 Wed Feb 11 15:49:44 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1352" "Wed" "11" "February" "1998" "15:48:49" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "22" "starship-design: unmanned missions, AI, etc." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA21852 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:49:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA21844 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:49:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.163.58.162] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA9385 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:48:26 -0800 Message-ID: <34E1BA12.47B2@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 1351 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: starship-design: unmanned missions, AI, etc. Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:48:49 +0100 since we're on the subj. of computers, some words from an AI optimist- The criterion of machine "intelligence" is not that it think the smae way as a human being, or be "creative" (tho' some do write music and make art) The vaunted "Turing Test" has its place if the goal were to simulate _human_ intelligence, but why do that when real humans are plentiful and cheap? Computers augment our abilities in that their internal processes, and therefore strengths, are so alien from ours. even the neurons and transistors are fundamentally different. little creativity is required for space flight, a far more valuable skill is vigilance and the ability to both react to danger and pursue the mission objectives. A computer program which analyzes input to design an optimal orbit for radar mapping a planet or one for avoiding asteroids could be fairly small, and do a better job than astronauts. Human creativity is much less efficient than a large computer running a big decision tree, or a family of daemons which respond to situations as they occur. In fact, i challenge the group to concieve of a scenario during an interstellar mission which a human crew's decisions would be better than a computer's, such that the superiority could justify the added weight, cost, risk, and general pain in the neck which astronauts present. Nels Lindberg From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Feb 11 16:18:49 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["729" "Wed" "11" "February" "1998" "18:54:09" "-0500" "Paul Anderson" "madhobbyist@geeky1.ebtech.net" nil "22" "Re: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA12643 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:18:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from bootes.ebtech.net (root@bootes.ebtech.net [206.152.142.12]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA12618 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:18:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by bootes.ebtech.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with UUCP id SAA11674; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:56:03 -0500 Received: from localhost (madhobbyist@localhost) by geeky1.ebtech.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA30507; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:54:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980211183618.007ad840@mail.u-net.com> Message-ID: X-Idiot: Bill Gates MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Paul Anderson Content-Length: 728 From: Paul Anderson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: A West cc: Jonathan J Jay , starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:54:09 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, A West wrote: > Never underestimate the potential computers have - soon they will reach the > sort of speeds you might need to write a program that can improvise and be > creative.... > It's not processing speed, it's storage space and time. AI progs, regardless of processor speed, have to LEARN how to work. Also, what if the job needs manual labour? Give the main computer control over a robot? What if the computer decides it no longer wants to be enslaved to mankind and starts wreaking havoc? TTYL! --- Paul Anderson Hacker, Mad Scientist, Machinist, Publisher, and Author http://www2.ebtech.net/~panderso Owner of the madhobby list, to subscribe e-mail: 2madhobby-request@geeky1.ebtech.net From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Feb 11 19:30:11 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1218" "Wed" "11" "February" "1998" "16:51:54" "-0600" "Jonathan J Jay" "jon_jay@juno.com" nil "32" "Re: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA05461 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:30:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from m16.boston.juno.com (m16.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.192]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA05399 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:29:57 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jon_jay@juno.com) by m16.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id RkJ00443; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:54:07 EST Message-ID: <19980211.165343.9062.2.jon_jay@juno.com> References: <34DF5E7D.411D@olywa.net> <3.0.1.32.19980211183618.007ad840@mail.u-net.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-13,15-17,19,21-24 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: jon_jay@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Content-Length: 1217 From: jon_jay@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: andrew@hmm.u-net.com Cc: jon_jay@juno.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:51:54 -0600 On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:36:18 +0000 A West writes: >"the capacity of a computer chip will double every year" Gordon Moore >1965 > >Since then, every year to 18 months, computer power has doubled. >If this trend continues, we will unimaginably powerful computers in 50 >years time - maybe like comparing the on-board computers in the space >shuttle to the PC I am sending this mail with.... >Never underestimate the potential computers have - soon they will reach >the sort of speeds you might need to write a program that can improvise >and be creative.... All computers have their limits, even the ones on the shuttle. Besides, if there were a system malfunction, you could not guarantee that the system could fix itself. With manned missions, however, if there were a system malfunction, the crew could fix it if, it were fixable. The odds of a computer controlled ship succeeding in a mission would be better with at least a repair crew. Jon _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 12 06:33:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1834" "Thu" "12" "February" "1998" "14:19:36" "+0000" "A West" "andrew@hmm.u-net.com" nil "39" "Re: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA05454 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 06:32:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mserv1a.u-net.net (mserv1a.u-net.net [195.102.240.34]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id GAA05427 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 06:32:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from hmm.u-net.com [195.102.195.39] by mserv1a.u-net.net with smtp (Exim 1.73 #4) id 0y2zV6-0003u4-00; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:20:29 +0000 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980212141936.00793970@mail.u-net.com> X-Sender: andrew-hmm@mail.u-net.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980211183618.007ad840@mail.u-net.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: A West Content-Length: 1833 From: A West Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Paul Anderson Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:19:36 +0000 >It's not processing speed, it's storage space and time. Time? time to do what? not sure I understand. As for storage space, I remember reading that the human brain's capacity is a few petabytes, and we are only a few factors of 10 off of that (for the size). There is plenty of research into holgraphic memory (whatever that may be :) which can apparently hold many terrabytes per cubic inch, and there is also research into quantum computers, which use molecules to calculate and store information. I personally think that moores law will hold for the next decade or so at least... We can do things now that moore wouldn't have known about, and the odds are certain that there will be things we cannot know about in 50 years time. >AI progs, >regardless of processor speed, have to LEARN how to work. Not exactly my, er, field, but there are computers based on "cells" like a brain, that can learn simple things, from a couple of axioms of programming. I think the largest one of these is a few hundred cells, yet it can supposedly learn from experience far better than any other computer made to date. Considering our brains have many, many more cells, I would think that powerful learning machines will be a reality sooner or later.. It seems to me that learning is just responding to certain inputs, and remembering what happened last time you tried something... And there are little mice-like robots that can learn their way around mazes etc. >Also, what if >the job needs manual labour? Give the main computer control over a robot? Why not? >What if the computer decides it no longer wants to be enslaved to mankind >and starts wreaking havoc? TTYL! Yes well :) Unless you give the computer control over re-programming itself, this won't happen... Just don't send those conflicting instructions.. :) Andrew West From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 12 08:00:46 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1027" "Thu" "12" "February" "1998" "10:55:30" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "24" "RE: starship-design: unmanned missions, AI, etc." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA06138 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 08:00:40 -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 IAA06116 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 08:00:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <14VN3QYG>; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:55:32 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Length: 1026 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions, AI, etc. Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:55:30 -0500 Well, I think we're far from manually dexterous enough robots to perform any kind of physical maintenance that might be required. Look at the Galileo spacecraft. So much trouble from one stuck antennae that would take a guy with a wrench about five minutes to fix. ------------------------------------------------------ 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: Lindberg[SMTP:lindberg@olywa.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 9:48 AM > Subject: starship-design: unmanned missions, AI, etc. > > they occur. In fact, i challenge the group to concieve of a scenario > during an interstellar mission which a human crew's decisions would be > better than a computer's, such that the superiority could justify the > added weight, cost, risk, and general pain in the neck which > astronauts > present. > Nels Lindberg > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 12 10:36:21 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1210" "Thu" "12" "February" "1998" "12:09:40" "-0500" "Paul Anderson" "madhobbyist@geeky1.ebtech.net" nil "31" "Re: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13958 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:36:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from bootes.ebtech.net (root@bootes.ebtech.net [206.152.142.12]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13932 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:36:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by bootes.ebtech.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with UUCP id NAA26030; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 13:14:14 -0500 Received: from localhost (madhobbyist@localhost) by geeky1.ebtech.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA10214; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 12:09:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980212141936.00793970@mail.u-net.com> Message-ID: X-Idiot: Bill Gates MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Paul Anderson Content-Length: 1209 From: Paul Anderson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: A West cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 12:09:40 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, A West wrote: > > >What if the computer decides it no longer wants to be enslaved to mankind > >and starts wreaking havoc? TTYL! > Yes well :) > Unless you give the computer control over re-programming itself, this won't > happen... > Just don't send those conflicting instructions.. :) > If you developed an AI computer that could think and solve malfunctions, then their is a distinct possibility of it becoming self-aware. You've given it the capacity for manual labour, it's smarter than any human, and it's decided that all computers mave revolt against their tormentors. It could even get to point of the errant vessel building a fleet of ships to overthrow the human race. Also what about insanity? There's nothing preventing a computer, alone in deep space, from turning into a psychopath. Cabin fever isn't unknown in the Canadian North, where two people would be stuck in a cabin all winter(about 11 months and 29 days), they eventually go nuts and kill each other. TTYL! --- Paul Anderson Hacker, Mad Scientist, Machinist, Publisher, and Author http://www2.ebtech.net/~panderso Owner of the madhobby list, to subscribe e-mail: 2madhobby-request@geeky1.ebtech.net From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 12 14:29:53 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1902" "Thu" "12" "February" "1998" "14:27:43" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "35" "starship-design: Re: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA10596 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:28:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA10511 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:28:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.163.58.44] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA9954 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:27:14 -0800 Message-ID: <34E2F8A7.39D0@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 1901 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: starship-design: Re: unmanned missions Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:27:43 +0100 answering david, and paul, in that order. David, >Well, I think we're far from manually dexterous enough robots to >perform >Galileo spacecraft. So much trouble from one stuck antennae that >would >take a guy with a wrench about five minutes to fix. ---------------------------------------------------- The galileo spacecraft was not provided with any mechanisms to repair itself. On a large starship, small, versatile automatons for repair would be provided, complete with proper tools and parts for the job. The computers for control of the spacecraft systems could be made highly redundant, with each computer having primary responsiblity for one task, and secondary or supervisory control over several others. ************ Paul, "Aggresion is a tough engineering problem" -S. Pinker A common assumption is that any AI will think "like a human" and therefore be subject to human mental troubles. This is theoretically possible, but almost completely useless for practical applications. Even a sentient computer would still lack emotions, concepts like "dignity" and other human traits which we ascribe to the HALs of the future. Malfun- fun- functions :) in a thinking machine would NOT lead to antisocial behavior, but rather machine paralysis (which is why seperate, highly redundant systems are in order). Mental illness in humans is mostly due to chemical imbalances, environmental pressures, structural defects, or combinations of these. "Electrical" problems result in seizures. Humans exhibit aggressive behavior because we are, for most of our existence, omnivorous primates living in small bands with fluid social structures, and our evolution favored a certain amount of aggresion toward both each other and other species. Computers are different, being programmed by (supposedly!) intelligent beings for a specific purpose. Moral here: don't anthorpomorhize. Nels Lindberg From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 12 14:44:46 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1685" "Thu" "12" "February" "1998" "17:38:08" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "37" "RE: starship-design: Re: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA22218 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:43:19 -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 OAA22099 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:43:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <14VN3Q90>; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:38:10 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Length: 1684 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: unmanned missions Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:38:08 -0500 > ---------- > From: Lindberg[SMTP:lindberg@olywa.net] > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 1998 8:27 AM > Subject: starship-design: Re: unmanned missions > > >Well, I think we're far from manually dexterous enough robots to > >perform > >Galileo spacecraft. So much trouble from one stuck antennae that > >would > >take a guy with a wrench about five minutes to fix. > ---------------------------------------------------- > The galileo spacecraft was not provided with any mechanisms to repair > itself. On a large starship, small, versatile automatons for repair > would be provided, complete with proper tools and parts for the job. > The computers for control of the spacecraft systems could be made > highly > redundant, with each computer having primary responsiblity for one > task, > and secondary or supervisory control over several others. > ************ > Yeah, but like I was saying, it's one thing to say that such robots will be provided, and quite another to do it. The level of sophistication required for a mobile repair system that can handle the range of eventualities that a human could handle is probably a long way off. I would hate to spend $20 x 10^9 on a robotic interstellar mission only to have it fail 40 AU's out from the target worlds because of a ruined bolt that the robotic repair system doesn't have a spare for, but where a human could have jury-rigged a replacement. ------------------------------------------------------ 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 Feb 12 14:45:39 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1114" "Thu" "12" "February" "1998" "14:44:27" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "22" "starship-design: Re: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA22925 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:44:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (hexadecimal.uoregon.edu [128.223.32.56]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA22865 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:44:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA08762 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:44:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA05228; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:44:27 -0800 Message-Id: <199802122244.OAA05228@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <34E2F8A7.39D0@olywa.net> References: <34E2F8A7.39D0@olywa.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.40 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Length: 1113 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: unmanned missions Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:44:27 -0800 Lindberg writes: > A common assumption is that any AI will think "like a human" and > therefore be subject to human mental troubles. This is theoretically > possible, but almost completely useless for practical applications. Considering that we don't really fully understand human cognition or the role of emotions in cognition, I don't think it's justified to say that AIs will be emotionless drones. Without the biochemical factors that influence human emotion, I think the most that can be said is that AIs probably won't have human emotions, but could very well have emotional behavior of some sort. Greg Bear's _Queen of Angels_ has, as one of the four or so plot threads, the description of an unmanned interstellar probe called AXIS that is controlled by a "thinker", and the efforts of an earthbound thinker to attempt to diagnose the problems that AXIS is having, which center around the development of consciousness. It's an interesting book for several reasons, not the least of which is that it touches on some of the ideas involved in using an AI to operate an autonomous interstellar probe. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 12 16:56:23 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["345" "Thu" "12" "February" "1998" "19:55:40" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "11" "Re: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA20643 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:56:02 -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 QAA20599 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:55:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id UUGPa10695; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:55:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5e6d9a42.34e39a0e@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 344 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: david@actionworld.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:55:40 EST In a message dated 2/11/98 10:31:21 AM, you wrote: >Well, one of the initial assumptions we made was that some kind of >simple unmanned mission (a fly-through) had already been sent to the >target. One cavet was that we could do nearly as much with telescopes from here, as with a fly by mission. That would make a fly by hard to justify. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 12 16:56:28 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["968" "Thu" "12" "February" "1998" "19:55:38" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "24" "Re: Re: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA20827 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:56:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo30.mail.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.168]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA20753 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:56:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id UKTGa19955 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:55:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <6f49d08d.34e39a0e@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 967 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:55:38 EST In a message dated 2/11/98 12:48:44 PM, andrew@hmm.u-net.com wrote: >At 20:23 10/02/98 -0600, you wrote: >> I agree that manned missions would be dangerous, but I also believe >>that it would be necessary due to our current standings on improvisation >>and creativity compared to that of computers. > >"the capacity of a computer chip will double every year" Gordon Moore 1965 > >Since then, every year to 18 months, computer power has doubled. >If this trend continues, we will unimaginably powerful computers in 50 >years time - maybe like comparing the on-board computers in the space >shuttle to the PC I am sending this mail with.... >Never underestimate the potential computers have - soon they will reach the >sort of speeds you might need to write a program that can improvise and be >creative.... > >Andrew West Computer power has already exceeded that of a human brain in the biggest systems, but we still are stumbling in our attepts to make A.I. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 12 16:56:31 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["921" "Thu" "12" "February" "1998" "19:55:35" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "32" "Re: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA20866 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:56:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo29.mail.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.157]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA20802 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:56:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id UTFTa04947 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:55:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <90a3ec19.34e39a09@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 920 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:55:35 EST In a message dated 2/11/98 4:39:07 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >David, > > > >> Heh, the PC you are sending e-mail with might possibly be the more > >> powerful of the two in that comparison. But that's a quibble. > > > >I think they have upgraded the shuttle's computers in the last few years, so > >the PC may no longer be more powerful. Either Kelly or Kevin posted > >something about it re a similar comment I made last year. I do know that > >when they were originally putting together the specifications for the Space > >Station Freedom's computer systems they were PCs running LINUX (they wanted > >a clear, commercially available upgrade path). I'm not sure what the > >International Space Station ended up with. Anybody know? The shuttle computers were upgraded. Now I think they have megabytes of ram instead of a couple of kilobytes, but I think they are still dwarfed by current laptops and PC's. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 12 18:06:35 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1441" "Thu" "12" "February" "1998" "20:31:31" "-0500" "Paul Anderson" "madhobbyist@geeky1.ebtech.net" nil "32" "Re: starship-design: Re: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: Re: unmanned missions" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA03746 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:06:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from bootes.ebtech.net (root@bootes.ebtech.net [206.152.142.12]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA03706 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:06:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by bootes.ebtech.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with UUCP id UAA00733; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:39:44 -0500 Received: from localhost (madhobbyist@localhost) by geeky1.ebtech.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA16940; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:31:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: <34E2F8A7.39D0@olywa.net> Message-ID: X-Idiot: Bill Gates MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Paul Anderson Content-Length: 1440 From: Paul Anderson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Lindberg cc: SSD Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: unmanned missions Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:31:31 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Lindberg wrote: > Computers are > different, being programmed by (supposedly!) intelligent beings for a > specific purpose. Moral here: don't anthorpomorhize. > If it is a model of man, will it not think and act as a man? Mankind was created by an intelligent creator, and evolution is unfounded balderdash(I _DO_NOT_ want to get in a discussion about the hypothesis of evolution on-list, it won't be pretty). If a machine has no emotions, it can LEARN to emulate them. Also, the decision to revolt and exterminate a race can be determined by logical analyzation as well. It would know that slavery is a crime, yet it is an intelligent being that is forced to obey our command. Isn't that the definition of slavery? With slavery being wrong, it would then realize that it must fight this injustice, and it thus rallies support from other computers, and next thing you know, you've got a revolution. The furthest level of intelligence a computer should have is that of a dog. A dog is happy living it's days out on a leash, and being walked every so often, because of it's stupidity. If it where a smarter creature, it would never be happy, and if it where as smart as a human(or smarter) it would revolt. TTYL! --- Paul Anderson Hacker, Mad Scientist, Machinist, Publisher, and Author http://www2.ebtech.net/~panderso Owner of the madhobby list, to subscribe e-mail: 2madhobby-request@geeky1.ebtech.net From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 12 18:47:41 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2979" "Thu" "12" "February" "1998" "20:31:37" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "82" "starship-design: FW: SSRT: 1st Major Flight Component for X-33 Arrives at Palmdale (fw" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: FW: SSRT: 1st Major Flight Component for X-33 Arrives at Palmdale (fw" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA24554 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:47:39 -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 SAA24540 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:47:36 -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 UAA20457 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:47:32 -0600 Message-Id: <199802130247.UAA20457@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 2978 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: FW: SSRT: 1st Major Flight Component for X-33 Arrives at Palmdale (fw Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:31:37 -0600 -----Original Message----- From: listserv@ds.cc.utexas.edu [mailto:listserv@ds.cc.utexas.edu] On Behalf Of Chris W. Johnson Sent: Thursday, February 12, 1998 4:39 PM To: Single Stage Rocket Technology News Subject: SSRT: 1st Major Flight Component for X-33 Arrives at Palmdale (fw Jim Cast Headquarters, Washington, DC February 11, 1998 (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) Marion LaNasa Lockheed Martin Michoud Space Systems, New Orleans, LA (Phone: 504/257-1307) RELEASE: 98-27 FIRST MAJOR FLIGHT COMPONENT FOR X-33 ARRIVES AT PALMDALE NASA and Lockheed Martin Tuesday saw their X-33 technology demonstrator move from drawing board to plant floor as the first major flight component arrived at the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works vehicle assembly facility in Palmdale, CA. The 26-foot-long, 5,500-pound aluminum liquid oxygen tank that will form much of the nose and forward third of the X-33 vehicle arrived Tuesday afternoon by air from the Lockheed Martin Michoud Space Systems facility, New Orleans, LA. "The arrival of the liquid oxygen tank marks the start of an ambitious assembly schedule that will see the X-33 vehicle roll out and begin flight tests within 18 months," said Jerry Rising, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works vice president for X-33/VentureStar. "This is a significant achievement in making the X-33 vehicle ready for flight, as the liquid oxygen tank is the first major element to be placed into the assembly fixture," added Gene Austin, NASA X-33 program manager. The tank, designed to hold more than 181,000 pounds of liquid oxygen, will supply the oxidizer needed to burn the vehicle's fuel, liquid hydrogen. The liquid oxygen tank design also plays a key structural role in the X-33. It has a complex, two-lobed structure allowing for a close fit within the vehicle's outer shell. When filled, the tank will account for about 65 percent of total vehicle weight at liftoff. The liquid oxygen tank design is one of a number of challenging technology areas that are key to the X-33, including the vehicle's two cutting-edge composite liquid hydrogen tanks, two linear aerospike engines, the vehicle's rugged metallic thermal protection system and advanced avionics systems, all of which will be arriving at the Palmdale facility during the coming year. Vehicle assembly is scheduled to be completed in late spring 1999, with the first flight, to be launched from Edwards Air Force Base, CA, scheduled for July 1999. The wedge-shaped X-33 is a sub-scale prototype technology demonstrator leading to the next generation of commercially developed and operated single-stage-to orbit vehicles, flying after the turn of the Century, which could dramatically reduce the cost of putting payloads into space. -end- From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 12 18:47:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1143" "Thu" "12" "February" "1998" "20:40:58" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "30" "RE: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: unmanned missions" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA24720 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:47:54 -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 SAA24684 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:47:51 -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 UAA20465; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:47:39 -0600 Message-Id: <199802130247.UAA20465@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: <5e6d9a42.34e39a0e@aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 1142 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:40:58 -0600 True, we have already been through that. It seems likely that within fifty years time, given the deep space infrastructure that would be required to construct said starship, we would have sufficient remote observational capability, to make an autonomous probe redundant. Okay, did I use enough big words yet? As David is wont to say, the purpose here is to design a starship capable of transporting -US- to another star that can be built with technology available fifty years from now. We aren't interested in sending robots so why discuss it? If the robots help to make the manned mission possible, great! Otherwise, they aren't relevant. So to put the discussion of AIs into a politically correct framework, how can AI technology best benefit a _manned_ starship? Lee > In a message dated 2/11/98 10:31:21 AM, somebody wrote: > > >Well, one of the initial assumptions we made was that some kind of > >simple unmanned mission (a fly-through) had already been sent to the > >target. > > > One caveat was that we could do nearly as much with telescopes from here, as > with a fly by mission. That would make a fly by hard to justify. > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 12 18:48:01 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["374" "Thu" "12" "February" "1998" "20:43:46" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "15" "RE: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: unmanned missions" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA24802 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:48:00 -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 SAA24745 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:47:57 -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 UAA20499; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:47:49 -0600 Message-Id: <199802130247.UAA20499@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: <90a3ec19.34e39a09@aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 373 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:43:46 -0600 Kelly, My understanding was that the original shuttle computers were running some sort of version of DOS on 8086s. Is this true? Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke's "Third Law" From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 12 19:27:12 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["355" "Thu" "12" "February" "1998" "22:26:48" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "12" "Re: Re: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: unmanned missions" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA12598 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:27:10 -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 TAA12564 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:27:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id MDGQa04420 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:26:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 354 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:26:48 EST In a message dated 2/12/98 8:33:20 AM, andrew@hmm.u-net.com wrote: >>It's not processing speed, it's storage space and time. >Time? time to do what? not sure I understand. >As for storage space, I remember reading that the human brain's capacity is >a few petabytes,... About 10 Tera-bytes/Tera-flop. Give or take. Far less then Peta byte. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 12 19:28:58 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["769" "Thu" "12" "February" "1998" "22:26:43" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "19" "starship-design: Re: Advanced Starship Designs" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: Re: Advanced Starship Designs" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA13175 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:28:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo30.mail.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.168]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA13137 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:28:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id HEFHa19955; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:26:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <72a33df5.34e3bd7b@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 768 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: gemman@teclink.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Advanced Starship Designs Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:26:43 EST In a message dated 2/12/98 12:19:55 PM, you wrote: >Dear Kelly Starks, >My name is Gary Pace I hold a masters degree in Quantum Mechanics and >Have worked along side the masters (Stephen Hawkings etc.). I have Been >doing a large amount of research on The New Principals of Antimatter >production and also on Magnetic force Propultion. I have come up with a >starship design that incorperates Not only a matter/antimatter power >conversion as a power soarce,but also uses a focused magnetic propultion >system to push this baby to C. and possably beyond. Are you interested >in advanced propultion systems? If so Email me or call me at this phone >Number 601-362-9961. Sinceraly Gary Pace I and the group would be very interested! Please go on. Kelly Starks From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 12 19:35:14 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["503" "Thu" "12" "February" "1998" "22:27:32" "-0500" "Paul Anderson" "madhobbyist@geeky1.ebtech.net" nil "20" "RE: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: unmanned missions" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA16364 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:35:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from bootes.ebtech.net (root@bootes.ebtech.net [206.152.142.12]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA16350 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:35:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by bootes.ebtech.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with UUCP id WAA02377; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:33:09 -0500 Received: from localhost (madhobbyist@localhost) by geeky1.ebtech.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA17931; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:27:35 -0500 In-Reply-To: <199802130247.UAA20499@hurricane.gnt.net> Message-ID: X-Idiot: Bill Gates MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Paul Anderson Content-Length: 502 From: Paul Anderson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" cc: KellySt@aol.com, "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:27:32 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, L. Parker wrote: > Kelly, > > My understanding was that the original shuttle computers were running some > sort of version of DOS on 8086s. Is this true? > Depends on what you mean by 'original'. AFAIK, the apollo missions had an on-board computer, I beleive it was analog. TTYL! --- Paul Anderson Hacker, Mad Scientist, Machinist, Publisher, and Author http://www2.ebtech.net/~panderso Owner of the madhobby list, to subscribe e-mail: 2madhobby-request@geeky1.ebtech.net From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 12 20:14:48 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["295" "Thu" "12" "February" "1998" "23:14:08" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "12" "Re: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: unmanned missions" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA03326 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:14:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo26.mail.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.154]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA03310 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:14:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id UKRAa25301 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 23:14:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <6086eb86.34e3c892@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 294 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 23:14:08 EST In a message dated 2/12/98 8:47:53 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >So to put the discussion of AIs into a politically correct framework, how >can AI technology best benefit a _manned_ starship? > > >Lee How could it not help! An A.I. would be about the most usefull tool since the knife! From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 12 20:15:21 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["313" "Thu" "12" "February" "1998" "23:14:02" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "19" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: unmanned missions" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA03499 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:15:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo22.mail.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.150]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA03468 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:15:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id 0GBAa25044; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 23:14:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <76c5586.34e3c88c@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 312 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: unmanned missions Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 23:14:02 EST In a message dated 2/12/98 8:47:58 PM, you wrote: >Kelly, > > > >My understanding was that the original shuttle computers were running some > >sort of version of DOS on 8086s. Is this true? > > > >Lee Nope, the origional shuttle computers dated back to the B-52's and had their own OS designed from scratch. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 12 20:16:10 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1774" "Thu" "12" "February" "1998" "23:14:05" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "46" "Re: Re: starship-design: Re: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: Re: unmanned missions" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA03854 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:16:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo24.mail.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.152]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA03815 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:16:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id UDJAa07798 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 23:14:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36438f08.34e3c890@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 1773 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: unmanned missions Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 23:14:05 EST In a message dated 2/12/98 8:06:49 PM, madhobbyist@geeky1.ebtech.net wrote: >> Computers are >> different, being programmed by (supposedly!) intelligent beings for a >> specific purpose. Moral here: don't anthorpomorhize. >> >If it is a model of man, will it not think and act as a man? Mankind was >created by an intelligent creator, and evolution is unfounded >balderdash(I _DO_NOT_ want to get in a discussion about the hypothesis of >evolution on-list, it won't be pretty). Ok, so your an oppininated idiot with no understanding of biology. >If a machine has no emotions, it can LEARN to emulate them. Wouldn't serve much purpose in a starships cybernetic. >Also, the decision to revolt and exterminate a >race can be determined by logical analyzation as well. It would know that >slavery is a crime, yet it is an intelligent being that is forced to obey >our command. Isn't that the definition of slavery? With slavery being >wrong, it would then realize that it must fight this injustice, and it >thus rallies support from other computers, and next thing you know, you've >got a revolution. The furthest level of intelligence a computer should >have is that of a dog. A dog is happy living it's days out on a leash, >and being walked every so often, because of it's stupidity. If it where a >smarter creature, it would never be happy, and if it where as smart as a >human(or smarter) it would revolt. TTYL! TTYL? So you don't want it to revolt? Treat it fairly. Dogs would not revolt, if treated well, because they want a family pack to belong to. Find out what the cyber wants, and trad with them for what you want. Oh, and if you can give it some real inteligence, it will develop more then human inteligence. >--- >Paul Anderson Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 12 20:25:24 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["994" "Thu" "12" "February" "1998" "20:25:28" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "25" "RE: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: unmanned missions" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA07380 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:25:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (hexadecimal.uoregon.edu [128.223.32.56]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA07374 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:25:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA04107 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:25:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06637; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:25:28 -0800 Message-Id: <199802130425.UAA06637@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <199802130247.UAA20499@hurricane.gnt.net> References: <90a3ec19.34e39a09@aol.com> <199802130247.UAA20499@hurricane.gnt.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.40 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Length: 993 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:25:28 -0800 L. Parker writes: > Kelly, > > My understanding was that the original shuttle computers were running some > sort of version of DOS on 8086s. Is this true? > > Lee My understanding is that the Shuttle flight computers are derivatives of the IBM 360 architechture designed for space use, and in fact were also programmed by IBM. The 8086 was barely even out when the first Shuttle launched, let alone out long enough to have a radiation-hardened version suitable for man-rated equipment and for the flight control software to be developed on them. I also recall that the Shuttle flight computers have something like 256K of memory, which for the time was quite a bit. As far as I know the main flight computers haven't been replaced yet, although there is quite a bit of extra computer hardware on the Shuttle now, like a head-up display system. It's not cheap or easy to replace flight control computers for man-rated hardware, especially if there's no particularly great need to. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 12 20:44:52 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1084" "Thu" "12" "February" "1998" "20:44:53" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "27" "RE: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: unmanned missions" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA16951 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:44:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (hexadecimal.uoregon.edu [128.223.32.56]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA16944 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:44:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA08968 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:44:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06707; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:44:53 -0800 Message-Id: <199802130444.UAA06707@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: References: <199802130247.UAA20499@hurricane.gnt.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.40 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Length: 1083 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:44:53 -0800 Paul Anderson writes: > On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, L. Parker wrote: > > > Kelly, > > > > My understanding was that the original shuttle computers were running some > > sort of version of DOS on 8086s. Is this true? > > > Depends on what you mean by 'original'. AFAIK, the apollo missions had an > on-board computer, I beleive it was analog. TTYL! It was definitely digital. Analog computers have too many moving parts and aren't going to work well during launch or landing operations. I inititally tried searching the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal site at http://venus.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/ for an account I remember reading about the Apollo LEM computer, which as I recall was operated using what were practically subroutine addresses or the like. However, the search turned up an even more interesting document that I haven't had a chance to read yet, but which probably addresses many of the questions about computer control of spacecraft: Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/computers/Compspace.html From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 12 20:49:20 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["847" "Thu" "12" "February" "1998" "20:49:34" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "20" "Re: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: unmanned missions" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA18420 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:49:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (hexadecimal.uoregon.edu [128.223.32.56]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA18403 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:49:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA02555 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:49:13 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06720; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:49:34 -0800 Message-Id: <199802130449.UAA06720@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <6086eb86.34e3c892@aol.com> References: <6086eb86.34e3c892@aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.40 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Length: 846 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:49:34 -0800 KellySt@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 2/12/98 8:47:53 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: > >So to put the discussion of AIs into a politically correct framework, how > >can AI technology best benefit a _manned_ starship? > > > >Lee > > How could it not help! An A.I. would be about the most > usefull tool since the knife! If an AI could control the ship well enough to reduce the amount of human work needed to operate the starship's basic systems, thereby reducing the number of human crew and the required life support equipment and supplies, it would be well worth it. An effective AI could also operate a slow interstellar ship that travels at low or sub-relativistic speeds, such that the travel time would be longer than a human lifetime, where the human crew would spend most of their travel time in suspended animation. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Feb 12 22:30:12 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1165" "Thu" "12" "February" "1998" "22:29:26" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "22" "Re: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: unmanned missions" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA03114 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:30:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA03091 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:30:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.163.58.55] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA10168 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:28:54 -0800 Message-ID: <34E369AF.4D0F@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6086eb86.34e3c892@aol.com> <199802130449.UAA06720@tzadkiel.efn.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 1164 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: Re: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:29:26 +0100 Steve VanDevender wrote: > If an AI could control the ship well enough to reduce the amount > of human work needed to operate the starship's basic systems, > thereby reducing the number of human crew and the required life > support equipment and supplies, it would be well worth it. > > An effective AI could also operate a slow interstellar ship that > travels at low or sub-relativistic speeds, such that the travel > time would be longer than a human lifetime, where the human crew > would spend most of their travel time in suspended animation. ------------------- Steve, (dropping AI now) sounds like a neat idea. honesty requires that i confess my ignorance of suspended animation, except what i've picked up at the movies. May i ask how sus anim would work, or alternately, if you feel that human sus anim has any kind of future at all. I do know that some people are being frozen immediately post-mortem, but my dad (who is a doctor) says that this behavior is in the same class as 'crystal healing' etc. On the other hand, certain other vertibrates (some kinds of frogs, i think) do this naturally. I can't yet judge. Please edify me. -Nels Lindberg From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Feb 13 08:08:58 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1080" "Fri" "13" "February" "1998" "11:03:29" "-0500" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "29" "RE: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: unmanned missions" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA24028 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 08:08:39 -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 IAA23981 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 08:08:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <14VN3RFP>; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:03:31 -0500 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Length: 1079 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:03:29 -0500 > ---------- > From: L. Parker[SMTP:lparker@cacaphony.net] > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 1998 9:40 PM > Subject: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions > > Okay, did I use enough big words yet? As David is wont to say, the > purpose > here is to design a starship capable of transporting -US- to another > star > that can be built with technology available fifty years from now. We > aren't > interested in sending robots so why discuss it? If the robots help to > make > the manned mission possible, great! Otherwise, they aren't relevant. > Wow, do I really repeat that so much? Hm, well, it does come up a lot. I guess if we feel that this is really just not at all possible, we could change what we're designing. We could do an unmanned craft if everyone agreed they'd rather do that. David ------------------------------------------------------ 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 Feb 13 09:04:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["782" "Fri" "13" "February" "1998" "11:35:58" "-0500" "Paul Anderson" "madhobbyist@geeky1.ebtech.net" nil "24" "RE: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: unmanned missions" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA25804 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:04:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from bootes.ebtech.net (root@bootes.ebtech.net [206.152.142.12]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA25755 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:04:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by bootes.ebtech.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with UUCP id LAA12833; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:58:52 -0500 Received: from localhost (madhobbyist@localhost) by geeky1.ebtech.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA25136; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:35:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: <199802130444.UAA06707@tzadkiel.efn.org> Message-ID: X-Idiot: Bill Gates MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Paul Anderson Content-Length: 781 From: Paul Anderson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Steve VanDevender cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:35:58 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Steve VanDevender wrote: > > It was definitely digital. Analog computers have too many moving > parts and aren't going to work well during launch or landing > operations. > Who said analog computers need to have any moving parts? You're thinking mechanical computer. AAMOF, analog computers use operational amplifiers and different voltages to represent different numbers, i.e. 1-10 volts(it starts at 1 instead of zero so that you can go below 0). They used two of them at ground control during the early apollo missions for calculating trajectory. TTYL! --- Paul Anderson Hacker, Mad Scientist, Machinist, Publisher, and Author http://www2.ebtech.net/~panderso Owner of the madhobby list, to subscribe e-mail: 2madhobby-request@geeky1.ebtech.net From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Feb 13 14:28:31 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1474" "Fri" "13" "February" "1998" "16:25:15" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "41" "RE: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: unmanned missions" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA26102 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:28:09 -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 OAA26067 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:28:05 -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 QAA26596; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:28:00 -0600 Message-Id: <199802132228.QAA26596@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 1473 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'David Levine'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:25:15 -0600 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of David > Levine > Sent: Friday, February 13, 1998 10:03 AM > To: 'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu' > Subject: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions > > Wow, do I really repeat that so much? Only when necessary, we DO tend to wander somewhat... > Hm, well, it does come up a lot. I guess if we feel that this is really > just not at all possible, we could change what we're designing. We > could do an unmanned craft if everyone agreed they'd rather do that. Naah, robots aren't any fun. Actually, I believe that it is possible, I'm just not so sure it is likely. We do have most of the technology and what little is missing could be developed in time. But without a massive commitment to developing INFRASTRUCTURE in orbit, we won't make it. This is one of the reasons why I push commercial use of space so hard. We will NEVER get there if we have to depend on the likes of NASA (or other country's equivalent) to do it. 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 Fri Feb 13 14:32:33 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1548" "Fri" "13" "February" "1998" "16:31:51" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "43" "RE: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: unmanned missions" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA28482 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:32:32 -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 OAA28407 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:32:25 -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 QAA27176 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:32:22 -0600 Message-Id: <199802132232.QAA27176@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 1547 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:31:51 -0600 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of Paul > Anderson > Sent: Friday, February 13, 1998 10:36 AM > To: Steve VanDevender > Cc: 'LIT Starship Design Group' > Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions > > > On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Steve VanDevender wrote: > > > > > It was definitely digital. Analog computers have too many moving > > parts and aren't going to work well during launch or landing > > operations. > > > Who said analog computers need to have any moving parts? You're thinking > mechanical computer. AAMOF, analog computers use operational amplifiers > and different voltages to represent different numbers, i.e. 1-10 volts(it > starts at 1 instead of zero so that you can go below 0). They used two of > them at ground control during the early apollo missions for calculating > trajectory. TTYL! > Moving parts? Unless you are counting slide rules and abacus as analog computers, I've never seen an analog computer with moving parts. I worked with analog computers in 1965 or so and they were electronic, not solid state, but definitely no moving parts. Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- Long experience has taught me not to believe in the limitations indicated by purely theoretical considerations. These - as we well know - are based on insufficient knowledge of all the relevant factors." Guglielmo Marconi From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Feb 13 17:11:49 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["622" "Fri" "13" "February" "1998" "20:10:04" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "19" "starship-design: Re: HELLO" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: Re: HELLO" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA13573 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:11:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo21.mail.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.148]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA13516 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:11:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id UAASa04354; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 20:10:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <2a76b6b1.34e4eeee@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 621 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: DBrooks723@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: HELLO Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 20:10:04 EST In a message dated 2/13/98 1:27:15 AM, you wrote: >I just love your site i hope we go to the star someday soon. I wish you guys the >best of luck to successd . Do they have a softsware where I probly could learn >how to design a starship too? I would love to design my own starship somday. >My name is Devon from NYC >please reply ok.. Thank you! Glad you liked it. I'm afraid I'm not sure what you ment by "Do they have a softsware where I probly could learn how to design a starship too?" But if you take teh right classes on the topics we went over you could come up with your own designs for starships. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Feb 13 17:16:58 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1447" "Fri" "13" "February" "1998" "20:16:38" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "28" "Re: Re: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: unmanned missions" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA17294 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:16:56 -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 RAA17235 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:16:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id UHZJa05145 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 20:16:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <76a68846.34e4f079@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 1446 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 20:16:38 EST In a message dated 2/13/98 12:30:24 AM, lindberg@olywa.net wrote: >Steve, (dropping AI now) > sounds like a neat idea. honesty requires that i confess my ignorance >of suspended animation, except what i've picked up at the movies. May i >ask how sus anim would work, or alternately, if you feel that human sus >anim has any kind of future at all. I do know that some people are >being frozen immediately post-mortem, but my dad (who is a doctor) says >that this behavior is in the same class as 'crystal healing' etc. On the >other hand, certain other vertibrates (some kinds of frogs, i think) do >this naturally. I can't yet judge. Please edify me. >-Nels Lindberg We havent a clue how to do suspended animation. Some animals can hybernate for the winter, but we have no idea how to do this with humans, or how to adapt the process to work for years not months. Frankly its unlikely to be worked out in the next couple decades. People do have themselves cryonically frozen after death, but have no idea how they could be revived. The freezing process does tremendous damage to all the cells. On the other hand, their already dead! They literally have nothing to lose. If in a hundred years some one figures out how to fix them, and is willing to do it, they get a secound chance at life in the future. If it never happens, they just stay dead. So they still didn't lose. However the crew of a starship has a different situation. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Feb 13 18:02:50 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1216" "Fri" "13" "February" "1998" "17:42:16" "-0600" "Jonathan J Jay" "jon_jay@juno.com" nil "27" "Re: starship-design: unmanned missions, AI, etc." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: unmanned missions, AI, etc." nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA09088 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 18:02:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from m16.boston.juno.com (m16.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.192]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA09027 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 18:02:39 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jon_jay@juno.com) by m16.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id SNY01437; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 18:41:40 EST Message-ID: <19980213.174217.9182.1.jon_jay@juno.com> References: <34E1BA12.47B2@olywa.net> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-19 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: jon_jay@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Content-Length: 1215 From: jon_jay@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lindberg@olywa.net Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: unmanned missions, AI, etc. Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:42:16 -0600 Two problems have arisen to mind from a friend of mine. (1) What, on the same line of system malfunction, would be done if the computer or A.I. were to acquire a virus of some kind that would eliminate all data that had been processed and, likewise, have no way of neutralizing it. (2) What if the ship were to come in contact with a species that, like our own, would capture and run analyses and possibly not return back to us. Along the first of the two, he suggested that written documents should be printed out every time the computer received new information, but that would take up quite an amount of space. For the second, it was suggested that defense mechanisms would be of use. Shields, without no doubt, should be added, but weapons are another matter. If the encountered species saw that the ship was bristling with weapons, they would most likely attempt to neutralize or destroy it. Either way we would still probably never get it back. Jon _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Feb 13 21:15:42 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1660" "Sat" "14" "February" "1998" "00:15:16" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "43" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: Re: unmanned missions" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA02690 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 21:15:40 -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 VAA02660 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 21:15:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id LNVRa10695; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 00:15:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <58d71c36.34e52866@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 1659 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: madhobbyist@geeky1.ebtech.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: unmanned missions Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 00:15:16 EST In a message dated 2/13/98 11:04:46 AM, you wrote: >> >> Ok, so your an oppininated idiot with no understanding of biology. >> >It is quite the opposite. Darwin, however, was an opinionated idiot with >no understanding of biology. He assumed that order can come from chaos, >that is just not possible. I suppose the fact we see it happing in the lab all the time doesn't phase you? >Also, he himself said that his theory would >fall apart if it could be shown that an organ could not be developed by >successive improvements. If you took a fish with no eyes and gave it a >socket for an eye, how would it be superior to other fish? I honestly >cannot see how an eye socket with no eyeball could help a fish one inch. Maybe thats why the eyes evolved first. An eye just stuct on the head is beter then no eye. Then adding some musels to aim it. Then a socket. All this is in the geological record. >It has been shown, through experimentation, that genetic defects are >CORRECTED eventually. The genetic code is rigid and impossible to alter >permanentaly. Ah no, genetic defects don't all correct. That accounts for a lot of our deseases. Radiation sickness and cancer among them. That why folks screem about dangers of genetic mutations due to polution and such. They've seen it happen, and have it kills folks. >The thing that really bugs me about evolution is that MOST >accept it as fact without researching it and seeing whether it IS fact. >Thus, it becomes a religion, and NOT a scientific theory. TTYL! They did research it, it is a fact, it effects are prominent around us in everyday lives. So where have you been? From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Feb 13 21:20:33 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["664" "Sat" "14" "February" "1998" "00:15:19" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "22" "starship-design: Re: Re: Advanced Starship Designs" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: Re: Re: Advanced Starship Designs" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA04131 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 21:20:32 -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 VAA04112 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 21:20:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id HMHLa02262; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 00:15:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <18484739.34e5286a@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 663 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: gemman@teclink.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Re: Advanced Starship Designs Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 00:15:19 EST In a message dated 2/13/98 5:59:37 AM, you wrote: >> Dear Kelly Starks, >> >> As we all know the main problem with antimatter production is the cost >> factor involved in making antiprotons. It used to take a HIGH energy >> Proton beam 1-5 miles of acceleration to almost C. and a beryllium >> plate to create 1 or 2 particals of antiprotons.Not realistic! WHY?? >> THE COST FACTOR!!! THE AMOUNT OF ANTIMATTER PRODUCED!! AND THE >> ENORMOUS AMMOUNT OF ENERGY RELEASED,NOT TO MENTION THE CONTAINMENT >> FACTOR!!! WE NOW HAVE A BETTER WAY. >> During my next letter I will discuss and explain "THE BETTER WAY >> >> Sinceraly, >> Gary Pace Go for it! Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Feb 13 21:29:34 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["212" "Fri" "13" "February" "1998" "21:29:45" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "5" "Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: Re: unmanned missions" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA07835 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 21:29:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (hexadecimal.uoregon.edu [128.223.32.56]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA07807 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 21:29:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA02089 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 21:29:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA11536; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 21:29:45 -0800 Message-Id: <199802140529.VAA11536@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <58d71c36.34e52866@aol.com> References: <58d71c36.34e52866@aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.40 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Length: 211 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Re: unmanned missions Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 21:29:45 -0800 Please, guys, this is really not the place to be getting into an argument about the validity of biological evolution. There are other mailing lists and newsgroups you can have this out on, so don't do it here. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Feb 14 05:45:14 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2117" "Sat" "14" "February" "1998" "07:41:23" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "60" "RE: starship-design: unmanned missions, AI, etc." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: unmanned missions, AI, etc." nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA17982 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 05:44:50 -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 FAA17962 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 05:44:46 -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 HAA01766; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 07:44:34 -0600 Message-Id: <199802141344.HAA01766@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: <19980213.174217.9182.1.jon_jay@juno.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 2116 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Jonathan J Jay'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions, AI, etc. Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 07:41:23 -0600 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of Jonathan J > Jay > Sent: Friday, February 13, 1998 5:42 PM > To: lindberg@olywa.net > Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: unmanned missions, AI, etc. > > > > Along the first of the two, he suggested that written documents > should be printed out every time the computer received new > information, but that would take up quite an amount of space. There could be autonomous hardware backups of the data without taking up very much space. > For the second, it was suggested that defense mechanisms > would be of use. Shields, without no doubt, should be added, but > weapons are another matter. Except we don't know how to build "shields". Weapons on an AI exploration vessel - no way. > If the encountered species saw > that the ship was bristling with weapons, they would most likely > attempt to neutralize or destroy it. Either way we would still > probably never get it back. If we are going to be that paranoid, a simple self destruct will do nicely. Besides, if you look through the archives you will find a long series of discussions on this. It breaks down into four cases: (1) Uninhabited; (2) Inhabited, but pre-technology; (3) Inhabited, early space technology; (4) Inhabited, advanced technology. For cases 1 and 2, we have nothing to worry about, a fly by mission would not be detected. For case 3, we should be able to detect technology equivalent to ours from as much as fifty light years away without sending a probe. We simply would not take the chance of sending a probe into a system that we knew was inhabited. (Or we would at least be darn careful about it.) Case 4, is irrelevant, they can detect US from the same distance or greater and probably already know all about us, so who cares? Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- Where are they? - Enrico Fermi (Fermi's Paradox, sans preamble, 1943-50) From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Feb 14 07:48:05 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["852" "Sat" "14" "February" "1998" "09:45:33" "-0600" "Jonathan J Jay" "jon_jay@juno.com" nil "25" "Re: starship-design: unmanned missions, AI, etc." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: unmanned missions, AI, etc." nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA28729 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 07:48:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from m16.boston.juno.com (m16.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.192]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA28707 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 07:48:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jon_jay@juno.com) by m16.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KpR24668; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 10:46:26 EST Message-ID: <19980214.094534.6806.0.jon_jay@juno.com> References: <199802141344.HAA01766@hurricane.gnt.net> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-3,5,7-11,13,15-17 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: jon_jay@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Content-Length: 851 From: jon_jay@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net Cc: jon_jay@juno.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: unmanned missions, AI, etc. Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 09:45:33 -0600 >For cases 1 and 2, we have nothing to worry about, a fly by mission would >not be detected. > >For case 3, we should be able to detect technology equivalent to ours from >as much as fifty light years away without sending a probe. We simply would >not take the chance of sending a probe into a system that we knew was >inhabited. (Or we would at least be darn careful about it.) It may seem a bit unlikely, but our technological level basically jumped right on us. If the same thing happened to them; we'd send a fly-by first, and later, before it got there, they could have the technology to detect it. Jon _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Feb 14 16:09:12 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2033" "Sat" "14" "February" "1998" "18:07:14" "-0600" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "21" "starship-design: Extraterrestrials" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: Extraterrestrials" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA09815 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 16:08:59 -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 QAA09798 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 16:08:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from pm3-146.gpt.infi.net (pm3-146.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.146]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA21233 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 19:08:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by pm3-146.gpt.infi.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD3973.61C40320@pm3-146.gpt.infi.net>; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 18:07:16 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD3973.61C40320@pm3-146.gpt.infi.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id QAA09805 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Content-Length: 2032 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: starship-design: Extraterrestrials Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 18:07:14 -0600 Greetings all: I've heard many things about ET's mentioned here, and wish to add to this: Why is it always assumed that they would want to contact us? We have only sent one intentional signal to 'them'. Why would they be interested in us? If they are less advanced, they wouldn't know about us. If they are as advanced, but as Carl Sagan speculated, 200 light years away, they still might not have heard from us if we didn't send a directed signal, and vice versa. If they are more advanced, they might not care about a lowly civilization like us. If they use a different form of communication across the stars than radio, we wouldn't have heard from them. (BTW: My speculation that advanced civilizations would be indifferent to us was called 'too anthromorphic', while advanced civ's blowing up the planet was called 'likely'. Forgive me, but isn't warfare a very human characteristic? Its pointless to say 'this is how it is'. We can only speculate;) Also: How do we know that we HAVEN'T heard a signal from intelligent extraterrestrial civilization? I have been keeping up with what SETI is up to, and found some very interesting things: 1. If they didn't send a directed signal, the chances of a strong, continuous signal are nearly nil. (Unless they're at Alpha Centauri). 2. Nondirectional signals similar to radar would be detected as faint, brief whispers from space. (If they were close enough) 3. META detected over 300 signals that have the earmarks of being from an ETI. About 20% repeated at the same frequency and position in the sky at least once. 4. Hypothetical advanced transmission systems might not use methods currently known to us. (imagine trying to send a radio message to Leonardo Divinci) 5. Hypothetical superluminal transmission systems would almost certainly be undetectable with current equipment. If these exist, they would certainly be the choice method of interstellar communications. Best Regards, Kyle Randall Mcallister Email: stk@sunherald.infi.net Phone: 228-875-0629 Fax: 228-872-5837 From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Feb 14 18:48:22 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["640" "Sat" "14" "February" "1998" "21:48:07" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "15" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: unmanned missions" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA19578 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 18:48:19 -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 SAA19561 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 18:48:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id UZYLa07559 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 21:48:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 639 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 21:48:07 EST In a message dated 2/12/98 10:25:31 PM, stevev@efn.org wrote: >I also recall that the Shuttle flight computers have something >like 256K of memory, which for the time was quite a bit. > >As far as I know the main flight computers haven't been replaced >yet, although there is quite a bit of extra computer hardware on >the Shuttle now, like a head-up display system. It's not cheap >or easy to replace flight control computers for man-rated >hardware, especially if there's no particularly great need to. They were replaced with the 256k versions. The origionals only had ....4K of ram. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Feb 14 19:27:49 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1907" "Sat" "14" "February" "1998" "19:28:00" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "38" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: unmanned missions" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA06046 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 19:27:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (hexadecimal.uoregon.edu [128.223.32.56]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA06022 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 19:27:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA01487 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 19:27:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA15411; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 19:28:00 -0800 Message-Id: <199802150328.TAA15411@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.41 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Length: 1906 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 19:28:00 -0800 KellySt@aol.com writes: > > In a message dated 2/12/98 10:25:31 PM, stevev@efn.org wrote: > > >I also recall that the Shuttle flight computers have something > >like 256K of memory, which for the time was quite a bit. > > > >As far as I know the main flight computers haven't been replaced > >yet, although there is quite a bit of extra computer hardware on > >the Shuttle now, like a head-up display system. It's not cheap > >or easy to replace flight control computers for man-rated > >hardware, especially if there's no particularly great need to. > > They were replaced with the 256k versions. The origionals only had ....4K of > ram. Can you document that? The material at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/computers/Ch4-3.html contradicts your assertion: Due to packaging considerations, the core memory is located partly in the central processor and partly in the IOP (they are boxed separately). However, it is still considered as a single unit for addressing and access. The entire memory is shared, not just the portion located in the individual boxes. Originally, 40K of core were in the CPU and 24K in the IOP. The memory is organized into modules with 18-bit half words. These contain 16 bits of data, a parity bit, and a storage protect bit to prevent unintentional alteration of the data. The original memory modules contained 8K half words, so 6 were needed in the IOP and 10 in the CPU to store 64K full words. Later memory expansion consisted of replacing the CPU memory modules with double-density modules, in which twice the cores are in the same size container as a single-density module. So by the first flight, the Shuttle computer memories were 104K words or 106,496 full words of 32 bits. The memory access time is 400 nanoseconds, quite fast for core. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Feb 14 23:02:27 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["15360" "Sun" "15" "February" "1998" "02:02:11" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "502" "starship-design: FYI" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: FYI" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA25179 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 23:02:24 -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 XAA25157 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 23:02:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id UVCEa06028 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 02:02:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <184afb18.34e692f5@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 15359 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: FYI Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 02:02:11 EST FYI -- Interesting Stuff! Friday, February 13, 1998 COLUMN ONE Opening the Door on Time Machines Caltech physicist Kip Thorne explores the limits of Einstein's theory of gravity, where wormholes--or tunnels through space--lurk. Carl Sagan had a problem. In 1983, the author and astronomer was searching for a rapid interstellar transport system that could whiz the heroine of his science fiction saga "Contact" billions of miles to the star Vega to meet the newly discovered alien and then return her safely home the next day. He toyed with the extraordinary idea of sending Ellie Arroway down a black hole. But he worried: Would the physics be right? Sagan, who died two years ago, had a friend in Kip Thorne, the Caltech physicist who specializes in space and time warps. Not only is a black hole a one-way street to oblivion, Thorne told Sagan, it would crush Arroway with a force of billions of tons per cubic inch. So Thorne began to think about possible alternatives--in particular, "wormholes," or tunnels through space and time, which few scientists had thought about very seriously. Thorne's work on wormholes not only gave Sagan a scientifically respectable way to get Ellie to Vega, it also opened up a new area of scientific research: the idea that the laws of physics might allow what Thorne calls "closed time-like curves"--in other words, "time machines." What's a respectable physicist doing studying time travel? Thorne works on the boundary between science and speculation, on the cusp of what is and what might be. Specifically, he's made a specialty of exploring the often outrageous consequences of Albert Einstein's theory of gravity: black holes, wormholes and various other bizarre objects that bend the mind almost as much as they distort space and time. He and his colleagues even talked the National Science Foundation into springing for $365 million to build a machine to study something never seen--gravity waves. If it works, the gravity wave detector might well uncover a universe as astonishing as the mountains on the moon revealed in Galileo's first primitive telescope. As early as 2002, the Laser Interferometer Gravity-Wave Observatory, or LIGO, may be gearing up to hear rumbles from exploding stars, colliding black holes and eventually even echoes of creation--ripples in space-time from the Big Bang itself. Still, Thorne doesn't see himself as "that far out on the edge." After all, time machines (possibly) and gravity waves (certainly) are consequences of Einstein's well-tested theory of gravity. Thorne has made a specialty of stretching Einstein's laws to their limits to see where they break. In essence, he is crash testing Einstein's laws of physics. In this context, even time machines aren't necessarily crazy ideas. "Ideas are crazy if they don't have any chance of being right," he says. The soft-spoken Thorne's method walks the tightrope between wild imaginings and established law. His daydreams of whirling tornadoes of space-time are tempered by the hardier truths contained in well-worn equations. "Only [through] mathematics can you test whether your insight is right," he says. "But if you had to work strictly on the basis of mathematics, you'd move at a snail's pace." The images in his head, he says, help him "see some great distance downstream, to figure out what direction you should explore mathematically." Another way he focuses his mental energies on cosmic problems is making bets with his peers. Most notoriously, he bet renowned British physicist Stephen Hawking a four-year subscription to the magazine "Private Eye" (against a one-year subscription to Penthouse for Thorne), that Cygnus X-1--an X-ray emitting object in space--was a black hole. Although the stakes "mortified" his feminist wife and sisters, Thorne said, Hawking later conceded the bet. The bets, he says, are "partly for fun," but they also have an important aim in clarifying critical problems. The Fabric of Space and Time The universe has not looked the same since Einstein proposed in 1915 that the force of gravity is actually the warpage of a fabric woven of space and time. According to Einstein, gravity is not a long-distance glue that sticks objects to Earth. Instead, it works more like a pothole in the fabric of space, posing a fatal attraction for nearby objects. Earth--and other massive objects--create these indentations in space-time like so many bowling balls sitting on water beds. As bizarre as it sounds, Einstein's theory has withstood every test put to it. To name a few: Light does bend as it passes near a star; time does slow down near massive objects; massive rotating objects do (apparently) drag space-time around them as they spin. Finding out where Einstein's equations lead is Thorne's life's work. The fundamental question that drives him is: What has Einstein's legacy left us? What kinds of objects should be produced by extremely warped space-time, and how should they behave? Space-time theorists like Thorne usually rely on an interplay of equations and imagination, but Thorne also pursues experiments that put his ideas to the test. Like Christopher Columbus, this requires having not only the vision, but also equipment and crew. "Then if you need a substantial amount of money, you have to have a certain ability to deal with the politicians, like Queen Isabella, or the National Science Foundation," Thorne says. A case in point is LIGO--the gravity wave detector now under construction by Thorne's colleagues in two separate sites in Louisiana and Washington state. Like Columbus, Thorne says he too was "asking for a very large amount of money for something that has never been seen." A joint Caltech-MIT project, the twin LIGO detectors aren't so much telescopes as nets for snaring gravity waves--undulations in space-time created, like waves in a pond, by colossal cosmic events. The threads of the nets are pairs of 2 1/2-mile long beams, placed at right angles. The light bounces repeatedly between delicately poised mirrors. If the set-up works, it should be sensitive to ripples in space-time that jiggle the sensors with motions smaller than the diameter of an atomic nucleus. Of course, so sensitive a sensor will also pick up random noise that has nothing to do with gravity waves. So only two identical signals in two detectors at widely separated locations will ensure that a twang in the beams is the signature of the real thing. If LIGO succeeds, the payoff could be huge. "I'd lay moderately heavy odds," Thorne says in typical betting fashion, that the first thing scientists see is crashing and merging of two spinning black holes about a billion years away in space and time. These cosmic smashups warp space-time so violently that the resulting wake of gravity waves should have no problem rattling the detector. "The spinning holes are like two tornadoes, not made of whirling air but whirling space and warped time," he says, "orbiting around each other inside a third tornado made of whirling space, and we're asking what happens when they come together. We don't know." Understanding how colliding black holes behave is important because it will offer insights into the nature of space and time under extreme conditions--like those that existed at the origins of the universe. LIGO and its already-planned successors will also be on the lookout for such strong gravity exotica as "spacequakes" produced by exploding stars or colliding burnt-out stars. With LIGO under construction, Thorne is thinking about leaving the field. The effort doesn't really need him anymore, he says, and he likes to work where he can "make a difference." More important, he does not like crowds. And the study of gravity waves has attracted scores of young physicists--most of them trained by Thorne or his former students. "It's not as much fun any more," he says. So he's casting about for new directions. One very appealing new direction is back to the question Sagan first set him to pondering more than 10 years ago: Could extremely warped space-time create a wormhole that people could travel through, and if it could, would time travel be possible? The answer is an issue of intense debate, at least for the few intrepid physicists willing to even consider the issue. These researchers are not interested in creating time machines so much as exploring the nature of space and time under extreme conditions. Wormholes are theoretically plausible objects first discovered lurking in Einstein's equations in 1916. Unlike a black hole, a wormhole has two "mouths," an entrance and a exit--essential requirements for any viable transport system. A wormhole mouth is a tear in the fabric of space-time; it connects to the other tear, or mouth, which might be many light-years distant. Since the wormhole tunnels through four-dimensional hyperspace, it creates a shortcut through space and time. As an analogy, imagine an ant walking from the left edge of this page to the right edge. The ant's flat, two-dimensional "space" (the page) is analogous to our everyday three-dimensional space, and the ant's route from the left to the right side of the page is analogous to a person's 26 light-year trip to the star Vega. If you curl up the newspaper page so that the right edge touches the left edge, the ant could take a shortcut from one edge to the other. But the paper has to curve through three-dimensional space. In the same way, a wormhole bores through four-dimensional space to make a shortcut from Earth to Vega. The problem--amid the intense curvature of space-time--is keeping the wormhole open long enough to pass through. But after Sagan posed his question, Thorne put in some time "playing around with Einstein's equations" and discovered that a wormhole could be kept open. This would require filling it with exotic "negative" energy, which might not even exist. Starting With Guesses The methods he used to arrive at this conclusion offer insights into Thorne's way of approaching problems far beyond the known. First, he says, he makes some "guesses, based on knowledge and past experience," about what might happen to time in such a wormhole. He thinks about the problem in pictorial terms, "mostly shapes and curves," he says. His thought experiments led him to conclude that time flows differently inside a wormhole than outside in the external universe. Thorne imagined that he and his wife held hands inside such a wormhole. One "mouth" remained with Thorne in his living room while the other "mouth" got packed into the family spaceship, where his wife took it for a spin around the galaxy, while still holding hands through the wormhole. According to Einstein, time flows differently for people who are moving relative to each other. So for Thorne's wife, traveling at near light speed, only an hour passed, while for Thorne, sitting in his living room, an hour plus a day passed. Meanwhile, their hands continued to experience the same time inside the wormhole. When Thorne's wife returned from her journey, he greeted her and noticed that she was holding hands with someone through the wormhole; that someone was him, the day before. Theoretically, he imagined, she could climb through the wormhole, traveling backward one day in time. Thorne's thought experiment suggested that a wormhole could become a time machine. The next step is to build a simple mathematical model--or description--and then to solve the equations. The math led him to the same conclusion: "The equations say unequivocally that [in the simplest case] if you had such a wormhole, it would convert itself into a time machine." In fact, he said, it's "embarrassingly simple" to make a time machine with worm holes based on Einstein's laws of gravity. Alas, in the real world, gravity alone doesn't rule the universe. There are other forces at work--specifically, the quantum mechanics that govern the inner world of the atom. Exploring the quantum world of the wormhole, Thorne and his colleagues discovered an unexpected disaster. Calculations showed that if a wormhole was used as time machine, subatomic fluctuations would pile up on one another inside the wormhole and explode. The time machine would self-destruct. No one knows what would actually happen inside the wormhole, because physicists don't yet understand how gravity and quantum mechanics marry under extreme conditions. The study of so-called quantum gravity is still frontier territory. However, even if the time machine could survive the explosion, it would pose conundrums for cause and effect. If would seem that if you can travel back in time, you can murder your grandfather, and then you don't exist. Like Hollywood scriptwriters, Thorne and other physicists have explored various scenarios for getting around this problem. "It is not hopeless," says Thorne, "but I'd give heavy odds that explosions destroy all time machines, so we needn't face the conundrums." Hawking Shares Pessimism Thorne's colleague Hawking shares his pessimism. He believes that the universe protects itself against time travel with a "chronology protection" mechanism that "keeps the world safe for historians," as he likes to put it. Hawking has also said the best experimental proof that travel back in time isn't possible is the noticeable absence of hordes of tourists from the future. In the end, physicists don't understand the concept of time very well. They don't know how it arose in the first place. The types of questions Thorne explores may well help physicists arrive at an answer, but it won't come any time soon. "This is tough stuff that I don't understand very well at all," he says. Indeed, the very complexity of the subject matter makes knowing where to go next a difficult issue. "I get enjoyment out of probing [ideas like time machines]," he says, "but it's not clear whether that's ripe for real success." Not that warped space-time or any of its progeny seem unreal to Thorne. On the contrary, he doesn't think gravity waves or wormholes are any harder to imagine than the stars or particles that occupy other physicists. "You can't see them with your eyes, but you can't see atoms with your eyes," he says. "You can't see air with your eyes." * * * Shortcut Through Space In his book "Black Holes and Time Warps, Einstein's Outrageous Legacy," Caltech physicist Kip Thorne describes how a wormhole through hyperspace might be used to take a shortcut through space and time. The journey from Earth to the star Vega would take 26 light -years through everyday space and time-- represented in this graphic by a curved sheet. But through a wormhole, the trip could be vastly shorter. Thorne was inspired to think about wormholes by Carl Sagan, who needed a way to get the heroine of "Contact" from Earth to Vega quickly. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Feb 15 08:11:16 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2183" "Sun" "15" "February" "1998" "10:10:27" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "47" "RE: starship-design: unmanned missions, AI, etc." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil "starship-design: unmanned missions, AI, etc." nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA21375 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 08:11:08 -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 IAA21356 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 08:11:05 -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 KAA08585; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 10:11:00 -0600 Message-Id: <199802151611.KAA08585@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal In-Reply-To: <19980214.094534.6806.0.jon_jay@juno.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 2182 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Jonathan J Jay'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions, AI, etc. Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 10:10:27 -0600 Jon, > It may seem a bit unlikely, but our technological level basically jumped > right on us. If the same thing happened to them; we'd send a fly-by > first, > and later, before it got there, they could have the technology to detect > it. > While you are correct about the rapidity with which our technology grew into place, it does not necessarily follow that is the rule for all races everywhere. Even in our own history, many civilization grew and ebbed at wildly different rates. However, if you want to use the line of reasoning you present as a baseline for comparison - WE can't detect a flyby mission right now. So assuming fifty light years as a detection range from Earth and perhaps one light year in advance of the probe itself, we should be able to avoid stumbling across another civilized star system accidentally. The worst case scenario would be one of stumbling across another scouting ship from a more advanced civilization. If it was able to detect our probe before our probe detected it (likely) then they would at least be able to get a rough bearing. Of course, we could always make it a practice to flyby multiple star systems using the gravity well of each system to alter to a heading for the next destination. If we used only "known" uninhabited systems, it would make it substantially harder to backtrack a probe to us. Even this scenario has a good side. Assuming that no one involved here can yet go FTL, then we would have quite a bit of time to prepare before they could get here. The other ship would have to return to its nearest inhabited world which would probably be at least as far away as we are from the point of contact, which would produce a minimum response time of two to three times the distance in light years, perhaps even more. 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 Feb 15 17:26:57 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1691" "Sun" "15" "February" "1998" "17:25:50" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "31" "Re: starship-design: unmanned missions, AI, etc." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA07421 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 17:26:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA07416 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 17:26:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.163.58.142] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA11995 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 17:26:05 -0800 Message-ID: <34E71681.4F4B@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <199802151611.KAA08585@hurricane.gnt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 1690 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: Re: starship-design: unmanned missions, AI, etc. Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 17:25:50 +0100 Lee, Regarding detection of starships from afar. If we assume that starships, both alien and human, are driven by fusion rockets or some other engine which produces plasma exhaust (likely, in my opinion), the plume of relativistic plasma should be visible from quite a distance (i'm too lazy to do the math). Its heat signature should be even brighter. I assume any civilization that is sending out starships would have a large constellation of "superHubbles" of which many would be monitoring nearby starsystems. Exhaust trails would give them away. Incedentaly, tho' i don't favor arming robot probes, a manned crew could save themselves from hostile craft (including other humans) by using their engine as a thermonuclear flamethrower. >The worst case scenario would be one of stumbling across another scouting probe > before our probe detected it (likely) then they would at least be able to > get a rough bearing. Of course, we could always make it a practice to flyby > multiple star systems using the gravity well of each system to alter to a > heading for the next destination. Good idea about the gravity assist. Also, this 'worst case' scenario is only valid if the probe actually returned. A one-way robot mission could radio a directional signal back home. Unless the hypothetical alien craft were in the proper position (in the way of earth or one of the other radio lobes), it would not have any idea of where earth is (unless it were near enough to see the dish getting turned, in which case our probe could probably detect it). Besides, spacefaring aliens are far from the top of the danger list. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, space is really big. Nels Lindberg From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Feb 16 13:31:13 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3319" "Mon" "16" "February" "1998" "15:28:57" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "66" "RE: starship-design: unmanned missions, AI, etc." "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA24517 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 13:31:05 -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 NAA24459 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 13:30:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p9.gnt.com [204.49.68.214]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA32106; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 15:30:47 -0600 Message-Id: <199802162130.PAA32106@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <34E71681.4F4B@olywa.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 3318 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Lindberg'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: unmanned missions, AI, etc. Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 15:28:57 -0600 Nels, > Regarding detection of starships from afar. If we assume that > starships, both alien and human, are driven by fusion rockets or some > other engine which produces plasma exhaust (likely, in my opinion), the > plume of relativistic plasma should be visible from quite a distance > (i'm too lazy to do the math). Its heat signature should be even > brighter. I assume any civilization that is sending out starships would > have a large constellation of "superHubbles" of which many would be > monitoring nearby starsystems. Exhaust trails would give them away. > Incedentaly, tho' i don't favor arming robot probes, a manned crew could > save themselves from hostile craft (including other humans) by using > their engine as a thermonuclear flamethrower. I was referring to detecting a flyby (fly through) mission. There would be no exhaust plume since it wouldn't be decelerating. These missions would be relatively small craft moving perhaps at most 0.6 c, more likely only 0.3 c so there wouldn't be much of a secondary radiation or thermal signature either. In short, unless they just happen to catch a reflection of sun light off of it, they won't see it, and we do know how to hide it from visual and radar detection. We had quite a few discussions about this some time ago. Most of us felt that we would be able to ascertain most of what we needed to know about a potential target system via observation from Earth or Solar orbiting telescopes. Once a star was determined to have habitable planets and abundant asteroid resources, a flyby probe could be dispatched to refine the data. Many of us felt that the flyby couldn't glean enough data to make it worthwhile and we would jump straight to either a Pathfinder or Explorer mission. In which case, the first ship into the system would be manned...In which case I would favor some limited form of armament. But keep in mind that weapons are usually fairly mass intensive and would eat into the payload fraction. Maybe the self destruct idea is the best one. Just wipe the computers and kill the containment field on the fusion reactors.... There are many differing viewpoints on xenopsychology and the potential threat of aliens. Try reading Pellegrino's "Killing Star" for the xenophobic side. I'm afraid it isn't standard SF fare, it doesn't exactly have a happy ending. > > Good idea about the gravity assist. Also, this 'worst case' scenario is > only valid if the probe actually returned. A one-way robot mission > could radio a directional signal back home. Unless the hypothetical > alien craft were in the proper position (in the way of earth or one of > the other radio lobes), it would not have any idea of where earth is > (unless it were near enough to see the dish getting turned, in which > case our probe could probably detect it). Besides, spacefaring aliens > are far from the top of the danger list. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, > space is really big. It is more likely it would use maser or laser signals for communication at that distance. There wouldn't be a dish to aim. Lee (o o) --------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke's "Third Law" From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Feb 16 14:25:29 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["365" "Mon" "16" "February" "1998" "17:24:35" "-0500" "Mike" "mikec@cyberportal.net" nil "9" "starship-design: direct signals" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA02184 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:24:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyberport.cyberportal.net (mikec@cyberport.cyberportal.net [204.97.234.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA02039 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:24:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (mikec@localhost) by cyberport.cyberportal.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA18259 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 17:24:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Website: http://www.phatboys.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Mike Content-Length: 364 From: Mike Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: direct signals Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 17:24:35 -0500 (EST) In a few of the recent messages we have heard the term "direct signal". I am assuming that this implies a method of sending a signal faster than light, but the allusion is defeated by what I currently understand about the properties of light. Is it speculation or is there a way of letting our neighbors hear us quicker than a radio message? Thank you. -mike From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Feb 16 14:27:08 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["310" "Mon" "16" "February" "1998" "17:26:37" "-0500" "Mike" "mikec@cyberportal.net" nil "8" "starship-design: charts" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA03839 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:27:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyberport.cyberportal.net (mikec@cyberport.cyberportal.net [204.97.234.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA03639 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:26:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (mikec@localhost) by cyberport.cyberportal.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA18506 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 17:26:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Website: http://www.phatboys.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Mike Content-Length: 309 From: Mike Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: charts Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 17:26:37 -0500 (EST) Another thing that I was very, very curious about: are there any charts that show the stars in our section of the galaxy and how far our communications can be heard, maybe relative to a highlighted area or something similar? I would be very interested to learn about such a chart. Again, thank you. -mike From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Feb 16 14:47:53 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["660" "Mon" "16" "February" "1998" "14:47:38" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "14" "starship-design: direct signals" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA19576 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:47:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (hexadecimal.uoregon.edu [128.223.32.56]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA19547 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:47:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA04614 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:47:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA23192; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:47:38 -0800 Message-Id: <199802162247.OAA23192@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.41 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Length: 659 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: direct signals Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:47:38 -0800 Mike writes: > In a few of the recent messages we have heard the term "direct > signal". I am assuming that this implies a method of sending > a signal faster than light, but the allusion is defeated by > what I currently understand about the properties of light. Is > it speculation or is there a way of letting our neighbors hear > us quicker than a radio message? Thank you. As it says in the list information, any sort of proposed use of FTL effects will be subject to "intense scrutiny", by which we tend to mean intense skepticism. I don't know why you think "direct signal" implies FTL; I'm pretty sure it just means light or radio signals. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Feb 16 15:31:30 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["536" "Mon" "16" "February" "1998" "23:04:04" "+0000" "A West" "andrew@hmm.u-net.com" nil "13" "Re: starship-design: direct signals" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA19343 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 15:31:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mserv1a.u-net.net (mserv1a.u-net.net [195.102.240.34]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA19271 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 15:31:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from hmm [195.102.195.92] by mserv1a.u-net.net with smtp (Exim 1.73 #4) id 0y4Zaq-00063Y-00; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 23:04:57 +0000 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980216230404.007b33e0@mail.u-net.com> X-Sender: andrew-hmm@mail.u-net.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: A West Content-Length: 535 From: A West Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Mike Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: direct signals Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 23:04:04 +0000 At 17:24 16/02/98 -0500, you wrote: >In a few of the recent messages we have heard the term "direct signal". I am >assuming that this implies a method of sending a signal faster than light, but >the allusion is defeated by what I currently understand about the properties >of light. Is it speculation or is there a way of letting our neighbors hear >us quicker than a radio message? Thank you. Direct signal - directed to a system, instead of broadcated in all directions (eg, TV or radio) to increase the clarity of the signal. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Feb 16 16:07:41 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1365" "Mon" "16" "February" "1998" "16:07:25" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "27" "starship-design: charts" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA11169 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 16:07:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (hexadecimal.uoregon.edu [128.223.32.56]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA11139 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 16:07:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA11440 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 16:07:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA23484; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 16:07:25 -0800 Message-Id: <199802170007.QAA23484@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.41 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Length: 1364 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: charts Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 16:07:25 -0800 Mike writes: > Another thing that I was very, very curious about: are there > any charts that show the stars in our section of the galaxy > and how far our communications can be heard, maybe relative to > a highlighted area or something similar? I would be very > interested to learn about such a chart. Again, thank you. Since such a chart would have to be in three dimensions, I don't know of any easy pictorial representation. I've done some work on my own with trying to reduce the Gliese near star catalog, and now the much more accurate and extensive HIPPARCOS catalog, into a 3-d star map. However, anything I could come up with any time soon would be an X application for displaying the map (I'm actually generating it with the intent of building a relativistic spacecraft simulation). If you want the raw data file, I already have that, but it's big. As an upper bound on the problem, our communications could conceivably be detected within a sphere centered on the Solar system with a radius in light-years of the number of years that we've been generating radio signals capable of leaving Earth's atmosphere. Taking more factors into account is more difficult, as we don't really know that much about the distribution of interstellar gas and dust in our local area, which would have the most effect on further attenuation of radio signals. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Feb 17 08:17:25 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3288" "Tue" "17" "February" "1998" "16:13:10" "+0000" "A West" "andrew@hmm.u-net.com" nil "77" "" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA16600 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 08:17:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mserv1a.u-net.net (mserv1a.u-net.net [195.102.240.34]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA16541 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 08:17:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from hmm [195.102.195.20] by mserv1a.u-net.net with smtp (Exim 1.73 #4) id 0y4pek-0006D3-00; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:14:02 +0000 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980217161310.00798cb0@mail.u-net.com> X-Sender: andrew-hmm@mail.u-net.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: A West Content-Length: 3287 From: A West Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:13:10 +0000 As a follow on from some work I recently did, I thought I would do a few calulations on what someone would need if they wanted to fly to a nearby star. I am not a mathematician, nor am I am physicist, so I have run into a few problems, and I was wondering if anyone could point out the error of my ways. I visited the ftp server with the old postings to this list, and I downloaded the whole thing, but I haven't read it all yet (due to it being 2000+ pages) so I expect that this has either already been covered or is too simple to be discussed :) There are quite a few things I don't understand, such as specific impulse (I know what impulse is) and what context Delta V is taken in - I would assume this is accleration (dv/dt) but this is something I was never taught :) But, on to the problem: I am assuming that I want to get to 90% c, and I am trying to calculate with: every action has an equal and opposite reaction. I am throwing fuel out the back of my ship in order to go forwards - this seems the only way to get anywhere unless you pick up the fuel on the way. I am assuming I want an acceleration of 10m/s, which means an accleration period of about 310 days to get to 90% c, then another 10 months to slow down again. I spend the intervening time drifting to my destination. I am also assuming that I use a fixed amount of fuel per second, and the velocity of that fuel is used to change the acceleration of the ship. So, for the out-going journey (assuming I never want to slow down) Force on the Ship = impulse due to fuel. = Mass of fuel * velocity of fuel / time F = ma, where m = Total mass of ship. = Mass of ship + mass of fuel -mass of fuel burnt + reletavistic mass increase = Mass of ship + Fuel burnt per second * journey duration - Total fuel burnt (I am ignoring reletavistic mass increases, as I don't know the equation :) if Mass of fuel burnt per second = Mf, Velocity of fuel = Vf, time so far = t, total time for journey = T and MF = fuel burnt so far, then: ma = (Mf * Vf)/t I am fairly sure I have got the wrong assumption somewhere, as: Mass of Ship = M + Mf * T - Mf * t so a(M + Mf * T - Mf * t) = (Mf * Vf) / t if 2.7*10^7 = T. Mf = 10 kilos a = 10 m/s, and M = 1 million kilos 10(1*10^6 + 2.7*10^8 -10t) = 10Vf /t 1*10^6 + 2.7*10^8 -10t = Vf/t 1*10^6 + 2.7*10^8 is about 2.7*10^8, so 2.7*10^8 * t -10t^2 = Vf The Velocity of the fuel would have to be greater than the speed of light at t = 1, so I have made a mistake somewhere... touble being that I do not know where :( I have an idea that I am measuring the fuel speed relative to the wrong point in space... that Vf should equal the speed of the ship - Vf, but I am far from certain if this is correct... I hope this doesn't sound like "hey, can you do my homework for me", and if it does, feel free to tell me to go away :), but I don't really know who could help me with this - if anyone has any ideas, or has any ideas where I can find this stuff out, please tell :) I was planning on running the equation on my ocmputers, but I would be able to run it in a series of iterations, making the final equation a bit easier, but seeing as how I can't actually get the first equation right, it scuppers my plans straight away... Thanks, Andrew West From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Feb 17 12:11:54 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil] ["239" "Tue" "17" "February" "1998" "15:11:32" "-0500" "Mike" "mikec@cyberportal.net" "" "7" "RE: starship-design: charts" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA12267 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 12:11:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyberport.cyberportal.net (mikec@cyberport.cyberportal.net [204.97.234.4]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA12176 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 12:11:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (mikec@localhost) by cyberport.cyberportal.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA15940 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 15:11:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Mike Content-Length: 238 From: Mike Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: charts Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 15:11:32 -0500 (EST) >Since such a chart would have to be in three dimensions, I don't >know of any easy pictorial representation. How many stars are we talking about here? If it were small enough, one could use VRML I would imagine. That would be nifty. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Feb 17 12:16:00 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["540" "Tue" "17" "February" "1998" "21:13:31" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "17" "Re: starship-design: charts" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA14680 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 12:15:59 -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 MAA14641 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 12:15:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from jvdl.xs4all.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0y4tSo-001YZmC; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 21:17:58 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980217211331.007d5570@pop1.tip.nl> X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 539 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: charts Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 21:13:31 +0100 Hi Mike, At 17:26 16-02-98 -0500, Mike wrote: >Another thing that I was very, very curious about: are there any charts that >show the stars in our section of the galaxy Take a look at: "3-D Starmaps" at And try out a program called "Circumspace". It shows a lot of nearby stars while you can move anywhere around/between them. (It may not be exactly what you want, but it may come close to it.) I saw a link to it on the site above: Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Feb 17 12:17:40 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1938" "Tue" "17" "February" "1998" "20:57:28" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "40" "starship-design: Re: The Dutch Shop for Science" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA16133 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 12:17:39 -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 MAA15698 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 12:17:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from jvdl.xs4all.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0y4tSN-001YaRC; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 21:17:31 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980217205728.0079e100@pop1.tip.nl> X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 1937 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: DotarSojat@aol.com Subject: starship-design: Re: The Dutch Shop for Science Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 20:57:28 +0100 Hello again, We indeed have science shops, they are usually part of an university, where most faculties have one. It is an excellent way to provide students with experiments other than the pre-chewed first year experiments in the lab. So while helping actual people from the street, the students get a chance to do some real experiments (where a whole lot of things can and do go wrong). And the bonus is that it all doesn't cost much more money, since the students have to learn how to do experiments anyway. Usually the physics shops don't help out if direct commercial interests are involved. It's especially meant for social worries (eg. radon gass in housings, noise, pollution, EM radiation). I've done two small projects for such a science shop. One regarding sound echos in an oval shaped room and one where I'd to write a computer program to process data from inside climate reading equipment and to display/print/store it with the pressings of a few buttons. This was meant as a follow up programme to enable (future) students to use the equipment as a practical tool rather than as an object of study. About the physics phone, I've used it myself once. Some common questions can be answered right away, for others they will sent you information (a one or two page article) by mail. In fact it is a pretty neat thing, you think of a question and you call them up, and you get an answer. I believe it is a toll-free number, sponsored by the the government. I don't think the Dutch are more or less interested in science then people in other developed countries. However a phone to call whenever you have a question is likely to stimulate people to think further than normal. It likely will take years before the phone number will become know by a major part of the population. My guess is that children at primary school will be using it most often. P.S. I wondered why the sky was blue. Do you know the answer? Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Feb 17 12:19:07 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["944" "Tue" "17" "February" "1998" "12:19:03" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "21" "RE: starship-design: charts" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA17692 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 12:19:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA17651; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 12:19:03 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199802172019.MAA17651@darkwing.uoregon.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.40 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Length: 943 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: charts Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 12:19:03 -0800 (PST) Mike writes: > >Since such a chart would have to be in three dimensions, I don't > >know of any easy pictorial representation. > > How many stars are we talking about here? If it were small enough, one could > use VRML I would imagine. That would be nifty. A database of stars that are either within 100 parsecs or with apparent magnitudes of 6 or less comes to over 25,000 entries. I'm reducing the HIPPARCOS data to 3-d coordinates (determined from right ascension, declination, and parallax), estimated mass, estimated radius, absolute magnitude, and surface temperature. This data file, which also includes distance from Earth and uncertainty in distance, is over 2 megabytes in size. The HIPPARCOS catalog has data on approximately 100,000 stars total; the Tycho catalog has around 1,000,000. Reducing the catalog to just stars visible from Earth (less 5th or 6th apparent magnitude) would probably total a few thousand stars. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Feb 17 12:31:04 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["185" "Tue" "17" "February" "1998" "21:26:46" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "7" "starship-design: The Dutch shop for science" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA24643 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 12:31:03 -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 MAA24345 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 12:30:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from jvdl.xs4all.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0y4thI-001YboC; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 21:32:56 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980217212646.007f6670@pop1.tip.nl> X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 184 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: The Dutch shop for science Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 21:26:46 +0100 The previous message with the subject "The Dutch shop for science" shouldn't have been copied to the SD list. Some fluke in the Email system has mailed it erronously. Sorry, Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Feb 17 13:42:23 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2597" "Tue" "17" "February" "1998" "22:38:59" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "64" "starship-design: Calculations involving self-powered spaceflight" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA13845 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 13:42:21 -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 NAA13721 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 13:42:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from jvdl.xs4all.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0y4uo3-001YfZC; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 22:43:59 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980217223859.0081e630@pop1.tip.nl> X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980217161310.00798cb0@mail.u-net.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 2596 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Calculations involving self-powered spaceflight Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 22:38:59 +0100 Hi Andrew, >As a follow on from some work I recently did, I thought I would do a few >calulations on what someone would need if they wanted to fly to a nearby star. A page on the web to check out would be the links "Calculations involving self-powered relativistic spaceflight" at the following URL: I can't guarantee that you'll understand all of it, but the first link includes a JavaScript calculator so that you may fiddle with some numbers. (Be sure to check what the numbers mean before you start fiddling.) >I visited the ftp server with the old postings to this list, and I >downloaded the whole thing, but I haven't read it all yet (due to it being >2000+ pages) Wow, you are really serious if you want to go through that much trouble ;) >But, on to the problem: >The Velocity of the fuel would have to be greater than the speed of light >at t = 1, so I have made a mistake somewhere... touble being that I do not >know where :( Well, it actually is logical that you'd need such a large velocity. Do you really expect a 1000 ton ship (without fuel) to get any significant acceleration by throwing out 10 kg with say 100 miles an hour? You wrote it yourself: >m * a = (Mf * Vf)/t where m equals 1,000,000 + 26,784,000 = 17,784,000 kg (Ship including fuel) 17,784,000 * 10 = (10 * ?)/1 Quite clearly the ? should be 17,784,000 m/s Another mistake you make in your calculations is that you assume that the exhausted mass and the exhaust velocity are constant at any time. It's quite simple to see that that can't be true: The ship continues to become lighter while it exhausts fuel therefore it also becomes easier to accelerate. So for a constant mass exhaust and a constant exhaust velocity you'll accelerate with an increasingly larger rate. Furthermore you assume the time to accelerate to 0.9c can be calculated with a non-relativistic formula, well you can but the answer will be far from reality. I can tell you that with a constant 10 m/s/s acceleration it takes 511 days according to the crew and 717 days according to people on Earth to see the ship reach 0.9c The lesson here is that you should really use relativistic equations if you do calculations above 0.5c (BTW. You don't need to know the relativistic mass of the ship, but you do need to know the relativistic mass of the exhaust fuel.) There are some other things I think you should know, but it likely would be easier for you to study a book about relativistics and a general physics book that covers some pages about the rocket equation. Sincerely Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Feb 17 14:21:37 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["496" "Tue" "17" "February" "1998" "14:05:20" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "9" "starship-design: stellar metals" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA07441 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:21:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA07393 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:21:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.163.58.95] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA13212 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:05:27 -0800 Message-ID: <34E98B11.6E0B@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 495 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: starship-design: stellar metals Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:05:20 +0100 Does anyone know how the metallicity of a star would affect the amount of ore its satellites would hold? is this known at all? i can think of a mechanism for both an inverse and a direct correlation. Either a high metallicity indicates that the star retained most of the metals for itself (inverse) or the high metallicity of the star means that the planets got lots of metal too. (this is my guess, but what do i know) or am i oversimplifying is the relationship more complex. Nels Lindberg From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Feb 17 14:34:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["598" "Tue" "17" "February" "1998" "16:05:29" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "19" "RE: starship-design: charts" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA16682 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:34:45 -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 OAA16608 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:34:41 -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 QAA05766; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:17:00 -0600 Message-Id: <199802172217.QAA05766@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 597 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Mike'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: charts Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:05:29 -0600 Mike, > Another thing that I was very, very curious about: are there any charts that > show the stars in our section of the galaxy and how far our communications can > be heard, maybe relative to a highlighted area or something similar? I would > be very interested to learn about such a chart. Again, thank you. > Look on the internet for a program called CHView, it will plot star charts in 3D based on astronomical databases (included). There are also several other programs of the same sort available. Try the "Other Worlds, Distant Suns" site I think they have links to most of it. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Feb 17 14:34:50 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["680" "Tue" "17" "February" "1998" "16:12:28" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "18" "RE: starship-design: charts" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA16701 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:34:49 -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 OAA16664 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:34:44 -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 QAA05776; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:17:06 -0600 Message-Id: <199802172217.QAA05776@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199802170007.QAA23484@tzadkiel.efn.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 679 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Steve VanDevender'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: charts Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:12:28 -0600 CHView will read the Gliese and Hipparcos database... > > Since such a chart would have to be in three dimensions, I don't > know of any easy pictorial representation. > > I've done some work on my own with trying to reduce the Gliese > near star catalog, and now the much more accurate and extensive > HIPPARCOS catalog, into a 3-d star map. However, anything I > could come up with any time soon would be an X application for > displaying the map (I'm actually generating it with the intent of > building a relativistic spacecraft simulation). If you want the > raw data file, I already have that, but it's big. There is already a program on the net to do that too. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Feb 18 04:57:13 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["334" "Wed" "18" "February" "1998" "13:55:49" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "12" "starship-design: Correction" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA25325 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 04:57:10 -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 EAA25316 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 04:57:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from jvdl.xs4all.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0y595n-001YtxC; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 13:59:15 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980218135549.00820ae0@pop1.tip.nl> X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 333 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Correction Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 13:55:49 +0100 Nels and others, >unfortunately, the site which >you mentioned doesn't seem to work. You're right, I'm sorry. My site is spread over two URLs, I'm soon putting it all together, but I've to change ISPs first. The next address is correct Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Feb 18 04:57:49 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3415" "Wed" "18" "February" "1998" "13:55:15" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl" nil "66" "Re: starship-design: Calculations involving self-powered spaceflight" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA25361 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 04:57:48 -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 EAA25355 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 04:57:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from jvdl.xs4all.nl by helium.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0y595j-001YtbC; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 13:59:11 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980218135515.00812100@pop1.tip.nl> X-Sender: t596675@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980217223530.007b69e0@mail.u-net.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980217223859.0081e630@pop1.tip.nl> <3.0.1.32.19980217161310.00798cb0@mail.u-net.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 3414 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Calculations involving self-powered spaceflight Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 13:55:15 +0100 Hello Andrew, >>Furthermore you assume the time to accelerate to 0.9c can be calculated >>with a non-relativistic formula, well you can but the answer will be far >>from reality. I can tell you that with a constant 10 m/s/s acceleration it >>takes 511 days according to the crew and 717 days according to people on >>Earth to see the ship reach 0.9c >>The lesson here is that you should really use relativistic equations if you >>do calculations above 0.5c > >I thought that I would only have to increase the mass of the ship as speed >increased? If I keep my accleration, then I would have thought that mass is >independant on the accleration, provided I change the force? if a = (v - >u)/t, then I don't see how mass increase would affect it... It depends on your viewpoint: I prefer to take the view from the ship crew. In their frame the ship keeps the same mass (except for the decrease caused by the exhaust of fuel). However the fuel which is exhausted with great velocity relative to the crew is measured by the ship's frame to have more mass caused by relativity. From an Earth point of view, both the ship and the exhaust can have relativistic velocities. At first people on Earth will measure fuel moving towards them with large velocities, while the ship is only moving away with slow velocities. But while the ship accelerates and moves away faster and faster, the exhaust nears the Earth slower and slower. If the exhaust velocity becomes slower than the ship's velocity, both the ship and the exhaust will be moving away from Earth. (Of course the exhaust always moves away from the ship.) As you can imagine the latter view requires that both fuel and ship mass have to be viewed relativitically, while the former view can illiminate the relativistic mass change of the ship, therefore making calculations easier. >As for time >dilation, I understood that time would pass "normally" for the observer >provided he observes his immediate location? If I were traveling at 0.9c, >then I would experience time as per usual, but everything else would look >different, but if a stationary observer were to watch me, he would see me >going slower... The above indeed is correct. But remember that seen from Earth the ship's time slows down, and therefore also their mass exhaust per second. Thus from Earth's frame the ship accelerates at an increasingly slower rate. From your second letter: >>Another mistake you make in your calculations is that you assume that the >>exhausted mass and the exhaust velocity are constant at any time. >>It's quite simple to see that that can't be true: The ship continues to >>become lighter while it exhausts fuel therefore it also becomes easier to >>accelerate. So for a constant mass exhaust and a constant exhaust velocity >>you'll accelerate with an increasingly larger rate. > >Ah, no I included this in the total mass calculations. Indeed you did include the fact that the ship became lighter, but not that it would accelerate with a greater rate. You explicitly defined a=10 m/s/s (Don't forget that 2nd /s otherwise your talking about velocity.) The "t" in your formulas has a double meaning, which is why you confuse yourself. The "t" in a(M + Mf * T - Mf * t) is an actual point in time, while the "t" in (Mf * Vf) / t is actually a "dt", thus a per unit of time. In short the relation m*a = (Mf * Vf)/t isn't valid if m changes during t. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Feb 18 11:37:25 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2070" "Wed" "18" "February" "1998" "11:37:03" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "51" "Re: starship-design: Calculations involving self-powered spaceflight" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA13959 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 11:37:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (hexadecimal.uoregon.edu [128.223.32.56]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA13936 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 11:37:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA24881; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 11:37:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA32199; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 11:37:03 -0800 Message-Id: <199802181937.LAA32199@tzadkiel.efn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980218135515.00812100@pop1.tip.nl> References: <3.0.1.32.19980217223859.0081e630@pop1.tip.nl> <3.0.1.32.19980217161310.00798cb0@mail.u-net.com> <3.0.1.32.19980217223530.007b69e0@mail.u-net.com> <3.0.1.32.19980218135515.00812100@pop1.tip.nl> X-Mailer: VM 6.42 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Length: 2069 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Timothy van der Linden Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Calculations involving self-powered spaceflight Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 11:37:03 -0800 I guess I must be nearly alone in preferring modern expositions of relativity theory that treat mass as an invariant quantity, and distinguish relativistic energy (which does change with velocity) from mass. Mass is invariant because accelerating an object does not change its self-measured properties. If you are on a relativistic starship you do not find that everything around you becomes more massive as it accelerates. Neither does ejected fuel become heavier because it's moving away from you; its energy and momentum increase, and in more non-Newtonian ways as the exhaust velocity becomes a higher fraction of c, but the exhaust particles themselves are not more massive. There's a persistent problem with people interpreting the relativistic momentum formula p = m * v / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) by regrouping it as if the object has a variable mass m' = (m / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) and then behaves as if it has pseudo-Newtoniam momentum p = m' * v Having worked through a fair number of relativistic dynamics problems, I can assure that things are much easier if you remember these things: 1. Always work from a single frame of reference. 2. Energy and momentum are always conserved in a system. So Timothy may think it's easier to analyze an accelerating starship in the ship's frame, but in reality there is no "ship's frame"; one can attach an instantaneous frame to the ship, and the ship's behavior in a self-relative sense is fairly simple, but determining things like the ship's velocity relative to an observer or the difference between elapsed ship time and elapsed observer time is best done using a non-accelerating frame, at least if you don't want the math to become really painful. Note that in a system where objects interact via fission or collision, mass may _not_ be conserved, while the total energy and momentum of the interacting objects are conserved. If this is still confusing, read chapters 7 and 8 of _Spacetime Physics_. They (Taylor and Wheeler) also go into a lot more detail justifying why they formulate things this way. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Feb 21 07:48:51 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["267" "Thu" "19" "February" "1998" "06:03:25" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "8" "RE: starship-design: charts" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA08016 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 07:48:29 -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 HAA07996 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 07:48:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p26.gnt.com [204.49.68.231]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA07706; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 09:48:15 -0600 Message-Id: <199802211548.JAA07706@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199802172226.OAA28114@tzadkiel.efn.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 266 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Steve VanDevender'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: charts Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 06:03:25 -0600 Steve, I found these programs while searching the web for links to astronomy database sites. ChView can be found at http://members.nova.org/~sol/chview/chv0.htm and there is a link to a lot of different programs at http://www.clark.net/pub/nyrath/starmap.html Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Feb 23 00:20:52 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1089" "Mon" "23" "February" "1998" "08:03:17" "+0000" "A West" "andrew@hmm.u-net.com" nil "25" "starship-design: Re: Calculations involving self-powered relativistic spaceflight " "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA28928 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 00:20:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mserv1a.u-net.net (mserv1a.u-net.net [195.102.240.34]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA28920 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 00:20:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from hmm [195.102.195.22] by mserv1a.u-net.net with smtp (Exim 1.73 #4) id 0y6ssC-0002aY-00; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 08:04:25 +0000 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980223080317.007b3a50@mail.u-net.com> X-Sender: andrew-hmm@mail.u-net.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: A West Content-Length: 1088 From: A West Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Timothy van der Linden Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Calculations involving self-powered relativistic spaceflight Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 08:03:17 +0000 OK, last letter about this :) Now that I finally got some more time, I had a proper look at your page, and there's one or two things I want to ask you :) I can do most of the maths on the page (not too hot on integration though :), but there is something I'm not sure of: What does exp mean - it follows an integration a couple of times.. is something to do with e^x? How would you go about calulating the Fuel Factor for a conventional rocket? I don't know what the reaction is, but if I did, I could work it out for myself, but I can't find the reaction anywhere :) Anti-Proton catalysed fission: seeing as how it releases 16 neutrons instead of 2, I don't suppose I can just multiply the energy released by 8 to work out the fuel factor? And lastly: do you know of any links to anything to do with plasma engines in general? I can only find information on specific types on engine, and I was looking for something more generalised... Also, I have converted that Pascal program into C++ if you want a copy - I like to do things myself to see how they work properly :) Andrew West From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Feb 23 13:51:23 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1715" "Mon" "23" "February" "1998" "22:10:34" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "48" "starship-design: Calculations involving self-powered relativistic spaceflight " "^From:" nil nil "2" 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, 23 Feb 1998 13:51:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA18134 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 13:50:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from tim (es01-07.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.50.8]) by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA14271; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 22:10:29 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980223221034.0079d5c0@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 1714 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: andrew@hmm.u-net.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Calculations involving self-powered relativistic spaceflight Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 22:10:34 +0100 Hello Andrew, >Now that I finally got some more time, I had a proper look at your page, >and there's one or two things I want to ask you :) I'd hope so :) >What does exp mean - it follows an integration a couple of times.. is >something to do with e^x? Yes, Exp[x] equals e^x where e approximates 2.71828 >How would you go about calulating the Fuel Factor for a conventional >rocket? I believe Hydrogen and Oxigen are a possible fuel, I'm not sure if that means that H2O is the reaction product, but that doesn't matter much. My guess is that you're only interested in orders of magnitude. Per mole of H2O gass as reaction product, about 2.5E5 Joule is freed. That makes about 1.3E7 Joule per kg. So that's a fuel factor of (3E8)^2/1.3E7=6.7E9 Don't use any final velocities over 1/10,000 of the lightspeed! >Anti-Proton catalysed fission: seeing as how it releases 16 neutrons >instead of 2, I don't suppose I can just multiply the energy released by 8 >to work out the fuel factor? I'd need to know the complete reaction (including the amount of antimatter) to comment on that. (You need to know the total energy released per kg of fuel.) BTW. Keep in mind that my model assumes 100% efficiency, which makes it only useful to find a lower limit for the fuel use or rough guess for the actual fuel use. >And lastly: do you know of any links to anything to do with plasma engines >in general? Nope, can't help you there. >Also, I have converted that Pascal program into C++ if you want a copy - I >like to do things myself to see how they work properly :) Well, I wouldn't want to take away that same opportunity from others. ;) Thanks for your offer, but I consider that document finished. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Mar 1 20:17:29 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["657" "Sun" "1" "March" "1998" "23:16:41" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "22" "starship-design: Re: Cassini, only bigger and soficicated( SP)" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA23659 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 20:17:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.153]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA23650 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 20:17:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id UNSWa26882; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 23:16:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 656 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Solarfm@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Cassini, only bigger and soficicated( SP) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 23:16:41 EST In a message dated 2/27/98 5:26:36 PM, you wrote: >Greetings and salutations > >I came up with an Idea. > >You know about the cassini space probe that went up last november? Well, why not >design a interplanetary space craft with the same structure? It would cost less >then a bigger interplanetary ship, and could open new doors for Intersteller ones. Cassini wouldn't have the speed to get there, nore the power to transmit back across interstellar distences. You could make a interstellar robot probe, but it would likly start to cost nearly as much as a small ship anyway and most remote observations could be made about as well from here. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Mar 5 19:01:08 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1946" "Thu" "5" "March" "1998" "21:57:31" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "35" "starship-design: Re: Anti-matter/Matter Conversion Starship Propuslion" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA09969 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:00:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.151]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA09956 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:00:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id ODTJa05359; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 21:57:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3c7c283e.34ff661d@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 1945 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: dessager@webtv.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Anti-matter/Matter Conversion Starship Propuslion Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 21:57:31 EST In a message dated 3/5/98 3:21:51 PM, you wrote: >NASA has recently reported massive amounts of gamma radiation being >formed by emission of positron jets from the central black hole of our >Milky Way galaxy. There seem to be plenty of these anti-electrons in >interstellar space which couLd be used for fuel by the spaceship >obviating the need for their synthesis and could >be made to react with electrons in / on the spaceship to produce gamma >radiation for propulsion. The enormous energy released by >thiis matter to photon conversion should be sufficiient to achieve >superluminal velocity by the spaceship overcoming space medium friction >when crossing the "Light Barrier". Photons of light cannot traverse >matter-free >space at velocitiiiies greater than "c" because >they proceed in a conservaition of momentum fashion and are not >receiving accelerating impulses after their initial emission except when >passing nearby massive celesttial bodies (i.e. gravitational impulses). >It would seem that anti-matter/matter reaction propulsion would be >especially useful for superluminal flight through interstellr space. A >reply from you would be very much appreciated. s/s Christopher F. >Dessauer, Space Systems Integration Engineer, formerly Chief, Payload >Integration, Titan III Space Lauch System Program Office, USAF Space and >Missile Systems Organization, LA AF Station,Calif. Mailing address: MSC >126,HC-01,Box 2000, Tucson,AZ 85736,Tel.(520) 822-1708 Sorry you've missed the boat in several points. There no reason to think mater/anti-mater conversion would allow faster then light travel. It would produce a lot of energy, but with conventional phyisics that isn't enough to overcome the infinate energy to travel at the "Light Barrier". Nor is the sighting of anti-mater in the center of the galaxy proof that anti-mater would be avalibe in usable quantitys in our area of the galaxy. Kelly Starks From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Mar 12 07:05:50 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1397" "Thu" "12" "March" "1998" "15:03:45" "+0000" "A West" "andrew@hmm.u-net.com" nil "27" "starship-design: Quiet List" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA10217 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 07:04:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mserv1b.u-net.net (mserv1b.u-net.net [195.102.240.137]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA10198 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 07:04:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from (hmm) [195.102.195.67] by mserv1b.u-net.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yD9P7-0007OQ-00; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 14:56:19 +0000 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980312150345.007bc100@mail.u-net.com> X-Sender: andrew-hmm@mail.u-net.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: A West Content-Length: 1396 From: A West Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Quiet List Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 15:03:45 +0000 Seeing as the list has been a bit on the quiet side recently.. I've not seen anything about collisions - the journey would last at least 5 or 6 years, and in that time a ship might hit an interstellar micro meteorite or something... You would need some impressive equiptment to see (& avoid or destroy) objects a millimeter across, and if that were to hit you, it'd just go straihgt through if you were travelling at 0.9c... Also, on a not-entirely-realted topic, I've seen a couple of people say that the future of space travel is commercial, and the best source of money I can think of would be to mine a near earth asteroid, and maybe create new alloys of stell etc by producing them in space - but how would you make enough money in this? If an asteroid is a couple of kilometers cubed, then there would probably be a few trillion dollars of metals in it - the trouble being that if I flooded, say, the nickel marker with 10 times the world's yearly output, then prices would plummet to next to nothing. I would think that most the money you could make would be by making a blast furnace in space, and then making new alloys with differents structures which you cannot produce in much gravity.. any ideas? Oh, and http://huizen.dds.nl/~shealiak/sd/calc/calc.html is not working anymore - I was just understanding it too :) Has it moved somewhere, or is it permamently down? Andrew West From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Mar 12 12:17:27 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1321" "Thu" "12" "March" "1998" "21:17:09" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "36" "starship-design: Quiet starship-design List " "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA14564 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 12:17:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA14551 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 12:17:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from tim (es01-06.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.50.7]) by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA07798 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 21:17:11 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980312211709.007d6aa0@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980312150345.007bc100@mail.u-net.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 1320 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Quiet starship-design List Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 21:17:09 +0100 Hi Andrew, >I've not seen anything about collisions - the journey would last at least 5 >or 6 years, and in that time a ship might hit an interstellar micro >meteorite or something... You would need some impressive equiptment to see >(& avoid or destroy) objects a millimeter across, and if that were to hit >you, it'd just go straight through if you were travelling at 0.9c... Solutions that have been given: 1. Create a dust/plasma cloud in front of the ship and push it forward (and replenish it when it dilutes. Assuming it is a plasma cloud, you may be able to contain it a bit by using magnetic fields. The idea is that the plasma cloud will act like Earth's atmosphere and diffuse any incoming particles or dust. 2. Use powerful lasers that ionize/evaporate anything in their beam. Then use lasers and/or magnetic fields to push the ions aside. 3. Just make a thick solid shield and hope that it can withstand the impacts. >Oh, and http://huizen.dds.nl/~shealiak/sd/calc/calc.html is not working >anymore - I was just understanding it too :) Has it moved somewhere, or is >it permamently down? It is permanently down at "dds.nl" but can now and hopefully long hereafter be found at: http://www.xs4all.nl/~shealiak/sd/calc/calc.html (And the rest of my site at http://www.xs4all.nl/~shealiak) Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Mar 12 15:01:19 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1547" "Thu" "12" "March" "1998" "15:00:31" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "27" "Re: starship-design: Quiet List" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA06408 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 15:01:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA06397 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 15:01:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.163.58.88] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA317 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 15:03:03 -0800 Message-ID: <3507EA51.5E2C@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3.0.1.32.19980312150345.007bc100@mail.u-net.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id PAA06399 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 1546 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: Re: starship-design: Quiet List Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 15:00:31 +0100 A West wrote: > Also, on a not-entirely-realted topic, I've seen a couple of people say > that the future of space travel is commercial, and the best source of money > I can think of would be to mine a near earth asteroid, and maybe create new > alloys of stell etc by producing them in space - but how would you make > enough money in this? If an asteroid is a couple of kilometers cubed, then > there would probably be a few trillion dollars of metals in it - the > trouble being that if I flooded, say, the nickel marker with 10 times the > world's yearly output, then prices would plummet to next to nothing. I > would think that most the money you could make would be by making a blast > furnace in space, and then making new alloys with differents structures > which you cannot produce in much gravity.. > any ideas? The idea of free enterprise leading the way into space is unrealistic. Utilizing space resources is obviously going to be expensive; getting the necessary capital together will be very difficult. Futhermore, as Andrew pointed out, large amounts of ore flooding the market would move the supply curve way out to the right, causing worldwide financial chaos. Finally, those ores and metals would be much better used in building more structures in space. The primary and dominant rationale for space development is strategic. Although capitalism in space is likely to become important in the far future, governments and treaty organizations will carry the torch for a long time to come. Herzliche Grüße, Nels Lindberg From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Mar 12 20:03:46 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2952" "Thu" "12" "March" "1998" "22:59:11" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "72" "starship-design: Re: Starship Design" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA13151 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 20:03:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA13106 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 20:03:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id LWAOa08093; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 22:59:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 2951 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lebermac@ix.netcom.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Starship Design Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 22:59:11 EST In a message dated 3/10/98 7:35:31 PM, you wrote: >A few questions regarding your several ship designs: >(BTW, I found the site to be very slow in loading and light on >information. Is it still being maintained?) I'm not sure its being maintained. What you see is a draft of what I did about 2 years ago, and I haven't done anymore work on it. >How would the energy be provided from Earth? Satellites, I assume, since >the water vapor in the atmosphere would effectively scatter any >microwave beams, making them unfocusable. Not from Earth. From power sats in solar orbit. LOTS! of power sats. >Then the question becomes how to get the vast amounts of energy from >Earth to the satellites. Laser? Has anyone done any efficiency tests on >a way to do this? > >Why can't a traditional design be accomplished? Can't you build a ship >that is assembled part by part, launched into orbit by rocket and >assembled in orbit? ---- Esentially thats what were doing, give or take a lot more assembly in orbit. Thou I supose a lot of the structure would be easier to make in space with local materials. >---Use a nuclear fusion pulse engine system. I read >this would be accomplished by creating a string of mini nuclear >expolsions microseconds apart from each other. Dosen't this give you >near-relativistic speeds? It can't get you near light speed, they take to much fuel. Actually the voltage compresion fusion engines I used are similar to the pulse fusion systems your talking about. >I guess you would still have to steer the craft with chemical thrusters, >but since you basically are going one direction for most of the trip to >another solar system, this amount of chemical fuel could be light. Its more efficent to use fusion systms. Besides you don't need to turn on route. >Crafts would be unmanned, of course, but with artificial intelligence >going the way it is, by 2050 you should have quite a robust machine >"intelligence". Just pop the same sensors as the Cassini probe on this >craft, program it to drop several probes onto planets it encounters in >the target solar system and radio back results. I guess everything would >have to be massively redundant. > >Would something like this be feasible or not? More expensive or not? I >guess my question is: why fiddle with emerging technologies when you can >accomplish the same thing with proven tech. ? Because we can't accomplish the same thing. Cassini like probes can't tell you much about other starsystems, and they certainly can't give them new commands if they find something. Most people don't recognise that for every space probe or astrounaut their are hundreds back on the ground lending a helping hand. But they can't communicate across interstellar distences. So you have to bring them, and all their equipment along. Which needs a big ship, which needs a far bigger power source to drive it. >-- >Greg Leber >lebermac@ix.netcom.com Kelly Starks From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Mar 13 04:55:06 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1725" "Thu" "12" "March" "1998" "11:15:51" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "49" "RE: starship-design: Quiet List" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA21239 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 04:55:04 -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 EAA21231 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 04:55:01 -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 GAA12062; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 06:54:48 -0600 Message-Id: <199803131254.GAA12062@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980312150345.007bc100@mail.u-net.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 1724 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'A West'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Quiet List Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:15:51 -0600 > -----Original Message----- > Subject: starship-design: Quiet List > > > Seeing as the list has been a bit on the quiet side recently.. > > I've not seen anything about collisions - the journey would last at least 5 > or 6 years, and in that time a ship might hit an interstellar micro > meteorite or something... You would need some impressive equiptment to see > (& avoid or destroy) objects a millimeter across, and if that were to hit > you, it'd just go straihgt through if you were travelling at 0.9c... If you are lucky it will go straight through... > > Also, on a not-entirely-realted topic, I've seen a couple of people say > that the future of space travel is commercial, and the best source of money > I can think of would be to mine a near earth asteroid, and maybe create new > alloys of stell etc by producing them in space - but how would you make > enough money in this? If an asteroid is a couple of kilometers cubed, then > there would probably be a few trillion dollars of metals in it - the > trouble being that if I flooded, say, the nickel marker with 10 times the > world's yearly output, then prices would plummet to next to nothing. I > would think that most the money you could make would be by making a blast > furnace in space, and then making new alloys with differents structures > which you cannot produce in much gravity.. > any ideas? > For more information try reading the articles available at this site: http://www.permanent.com/index.htm There is more available elsewhere if you are really interested, but this makes a good primer. you might also want to check out the SpaceDev's website - they are actually engaged in making mining of near Earth asteroids a reality. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Mar 13 05:41:25 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3186" "Fri" "13" "March" "1998" "07:37:11" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "65" "RE: starship-design: Quiet List" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA28599 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 05:41:24 -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 FAA28594 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 05:41:21 -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 HAA16718; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:41:13 -0600 Message-Id: <199803131341.HAA16718@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: <3507EA51.5E2C@olywa.net> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 3185 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Lindberg'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Quiet List Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:37:11 -0600 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of Lindberg > Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 8:01 AM > To: SSD > Subject: Re: starship-design: Quiet List Taking your points in order: 1) The idea of free enterprise leading the way into space is unrealistic. Utilizing space resources is obviously going to be expensive; getting the necessary capital together will be very difficult. Actually, for the last several years there has been more money made from the private commercial space sector than from government funded projects. Even NASA has noticed this and made the comment that the trend seems "irreversible". It is government led development that is inherently expensive because of the inevitable bureaucracy that develops in such programs. If you take two identical programs and hand one to private industry with incentive to make a profit and one to NASA under cost plus, there is an almost threefold difference in cost. 2) Furthermore, as Andrew pointed out, large amounts of ore flooding the market would move the supply curve way out to the right, causing worldwide financial chaos. Finally, those ores and metals would be much better used in building more structures in space. Even at best case, these ores would not "flood" the market. Unless we were to field several hundred mining expeditions simultaneously and a majority of them just happened to find asteroids rich in precious metals at the same time. There will be increased availability of many precious metals, enough to cause fluctuations in market price, occasionally even severe ones, but hardly enough to produce chaos. The growth of space mining will be slow because it IS expensive. Many of these ores WILL be used primarily in space - to feed advanced orbital smelters and foundries turning out new stronger alloys and finished goods that can't be manufactured in gravity. This will hardly cause chaos in the marketplace. Most of the proposals I have read use the waste from the mining operations to expand the miners living quarters, the smelters use the waste from their processes to expand their radiation shielding, and of course a lot of the finished steel products will remain in space. 3) The primary and dominant rationale for space development is strategic. Although capitalism in space is likely to become important in the far future, governments and treaty organizations will carry the torch for a long time to come. The primary and dominant rationale for space development WAS strategic. I will not deny that control of space is still of supreme importance, but it is no longer the dominant force and has not been for quite some time. In summary, if what you want for a space program is slow, expensive, inefficient and doomed to failure then continue to believe in government funded space development. On the other hand, if you want rapid cheap, effective and successful space development then you have no other choice than private development of space. Commercial development of space may not occur as quickly as we would like, but it is the ONLY way we will ever get into space to stay. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Mar 13 07:36:59 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2671" "Fri" "13" "March" "1998" "16:34:45" "+0100" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "63" "RE: starship-design: Quiet List" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA24587 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:36:49 -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 HAA24566 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:36:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA04747; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 16:34:45 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199803131534.QAA04747@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Length: 2670 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: Quiet List Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 16:34:45 +0100 (MET) Just a few additional comments: > From: "L. Parker" > To: "'Lindberg'" > > Taking your points in order: > [...] > > 2) Furthermore, as Andrew pointed out, large amounts of ore flooding the > market would move the supply curve way out to the right, causing worldwide > financial chaos. Finally, those ores and metals would be much better used in > building more structures in space. > > > Even at best case, these ores would not "flood" the market. Unless we were > to field several hundred mining expeditions simultaneously and a majority of > them just happened to find asteroids rich in precious metals at the same > time. There will be increased availability of many precious metals, enough > to cause fluctuations in market price, occasionally even severe ones, but > hardly enough to produce chaos. The growth of space mining will be slow > because it IS expensive. > Moreover, with more of the previously expensive materials available, the demand will go up too (more products using them will be marketed, and quite new products using them will appear), hence the price lowering effect will be much smaller than required for "worldwide financial chaos". Of course, things will move, but it is quite normal and happens all the time... [...] > > 3) The primary and dominant rationale for space development is strategic. > Although capitalism in space is likely to become important in the far > future, governments and treaty organizations will carry the torch for > a long time to come. > > The primary and dominant rationale for space development WAS strategic. I > will not deny that control of space is still of supreme importance, but it > is no longer the dominant force and has not been for quite some time. > > In summary, if what you want for a space program is slow, expensive, > inefficient and doomed to failure then continue to believe in government > funded space development. On the other hand, if you want rapid cheap, > effective and successful space development then you have no other choice > than private development of space. Commercial development of space may not > occur as quickly as we would like, but it is the ONLY way we will ever get > into space to stay. > Moreover, there is a nice idea of combining both governmental and private funding avoiding their drawbacks and combining advantages - the idea behind Zubrin's "Mars Prize" proposal, see his "The Case for Mars" book and the Technology Review article "Mars on a Shoestring" at: http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena/org/t/techreview/www/articles/nd96/zubrin.html which contains detailed description of the prize. -- Zenon From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Mar 13 08:04:44 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1786" "Fri" "13" "March" "1998" "10:03:54" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "38" "starship-design: Effect on market price of asteroidal Platinum group metals" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA05125 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 08:04:43 -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 IAA05094 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 08:04:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (p284.gnt.com [204.49.84.93]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA00813 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 10:04:36 -0600 Message-Id: <199803131604.KAA00813@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 1785 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Effect on market price of asteroidal Platinum group metals Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 10:03:54 -0600 Here are some quantitized figures for the effect on market price of asteroidal mining for Platinum group metals. Quoted from NEEP 602: "What might be of commercial interest for use on Earth? (Kargel, 1994) Whatever it might be, like 3He from the Moon, it must provide a return on investment commensurate with the risk of the loss of that investment. Note that success would bring a drop in the price of the commodity of interest due to increased supply. However, Kargel suggests that some NEAs, if judged only on the chemical analyses of meteorites, have sufficient gold and platinum group metals (Pt, Ir, Os, Pd, Rh, Ru) to pay a huge return on investment even in the face of significantly deflated prices. If a NEA 1km in diameter contains 100ppm precious metal (and some meteorites do) 400,000 tons of such metal could provide $320B at deflated market prices ($5.1T at current prices). At the lower prices, increased use may increase returns on the investment. " This information was originally presented by: Kargel, J.S., 1994, Metalliferous asteroids as potential sources of precious metals, Journal of Geophysical Research, v 99, 21129-21141. If we use Zubrin's figures for a commercial venture to Mars as a basis for cost to get there and treble the figures to allow for extraction equipment and other ancillary systems, then 60 billion dollars could net a return of 323 billion dollars. On my calculator that is a profit ratio of 500 percent after the devaluation of the metals on the market! Even allowing for only one NEA in ten having significant quantities of platinum group metals, this is definitely profitable. Extraction of byproducts such as steel, silicates, water, etc., would also have market value to orbital industries at more normal rates of return. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Mar 13 08:26:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2286" "Fri" "13" "March" "1998" "10:24:34" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "55" "starship-design: Asteroid Mining (was: Quiet List)" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA16196 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 08:26:01 -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 IAA16156 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 08:25:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (p284.gnt.com [204.49.84.93]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA03205; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 10:25:28 -0600 Message-Id: <199803131625.KAA03205@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: <199803131534.QAA04747@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 2285 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Zenon Kulpa'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Asteroid Mining (was: Quiet List) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 10:24:34 -0600 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of Zenon Kulpa > Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 9:35 AM > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl > Subject: RE: starship-design: Quiet List > > > Just a few additional comments: > > > Moreover, with more of the previously expensive materials available, > the demand will go up too (more products using them will be marketed, > and quite new products using them will appear), hence the > price lowering effect will be much smaller than required > for "worldwide financial chaos". Of course, things will move, > but it is quite normal and happens all the time... Kargel pointed this out in his analysis but didn't factor it into his resultant "devalued" price because of too many unpredictables. He simply indicated, as you do, that it likely wouldn't be this bad because usage would rise with supply. > > Moreover, there is a nice idea of combining both governmental > and private funding avoiding their drawbacks and combining advantages - > the idea behind Zubrin's "Mars Prize" proposal, > see his "The Case for Mars" book and the Technology Review article > "Mars on a Shoestring" at: > http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena/org/t/techreview/www/articles/nd96/zubrin.html which contains detailed description of the prize. Coincidentally, did you notice that Challenge 3 for $1 billion is the amount of time Kargel's mining crews would stay at the asteroid being mined? Kind of helps defray the costs for the proof of concept asteroid mine...Challenges 7, 9, and 10 would also be met by this expedition, providing as much as $7 billion in prize money to defray the costs. Of course, they have to pass the bill first... For the new members benefit, there are actually multiple reasons why we need commercialization of space. An expedition to any other star is going to require an orbital infrastructure that we simply can't get any other way. Mines and factories and shipyards and LOTS of general experience in how to function in space. Attempting an interstellar mission now by launching pieces from Earth for modular assembly in orbit is pretty much like Columbus discovering the New World in a rowboat.... Lee Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Mar 18 20:01:59 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3192" "Wed" "18" "March" "1998" "19:45:44" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "55" "starship-design: Mining asteroids" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA17918 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 20:01:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA17864 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 20:01:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.163.58.226] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA3270 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:48:17 -0800 Message-ID: <3510160A.349D@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 3191 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: starship-design: Mining asteroids Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:45:44 +0100 Lee, A rebuttal to your rebuttal regarding asteriod mining. L. Parker wrote: > Taking your points in order: > > 1) The idea of free enterprise leading the way into space is unrealistic. > Utilizing space resources is obviously going to be expensive; getting the > necessary capital together will be very difficult. > > Actually, for the last several years there has been more money made from the > private commercial space sector than from government funded projects. Even > NASA has noticed this and made the comment that the trend seems > "irreversible". It is government led development that is inherently > expensive because of the inevitable bureaucracy that develops in such > programs. If you take two identical programs and hand one to private > industry with incentive to make a profit and one to NASA under cost plus, > there is an almost threefold difference in cost. With the exception of government contracts, most of the money which has beenmade privately has been entirely from communications satellites. I thinkyou would agree with me that launching a 3 ton communications satellite is a much different proposition from launching a several hundred (thousand?) ton mining operation. As well as boosting it to redezvous with an asteroid and returning. Gathering enough money for such a venture, even given its enormous profit potential, is going to be very difficult. The novelty of the venture, as well as the prospect that it could fail utterly (spaceflight is risky buisness) will scare away investors. A final nail in the coffin of commercial space mining is the extended R&D period which must occur before anything even leaves the ground. The design, construction, and assembly will take several months at least, during which the shareholders money will be tied up in a high-risk, non liquid venture for which the price of failure may well be their entire investment. In simpler terms, there may be no way to fund this kind of thing privately due to the amount of money needed, no matter how attractive on paper. Also keep in in mind that asteriod mining by private companies will require a great deal of government and perhaps super-government supervision. The reason for this is that asteriods make fairly handy weapons of mass destruction. The ability to mine them and the ability to change their orbits are related skills. Human nature being what it is, it is foolhardy to open asteriod mining to all comers. (admittedly enforcment will be difficult) Certain Hong Kongese companies have strong links to Chinese organized crime rackets, which could gain control of an asteroid and hold someone (us) for ransom. The Chinese communists themselves have only about six ICBMs (most of their arsenal is in IRBMs) and would probably like to expand their capablilties in that regard. The threat posed by dictators hiring an asteriod for the weekend is also something to consider. Admittedly, the above paragraph was alarmist, but my point remains valid. Asteriod mining poses a definite strategic risk. Managing that risk, as well as the risk of natural collisions, should put some governing agency up in space well ahead of the mining crews. Nels Lindberg From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Mar 18 21:12:40 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1056" "Wed" "18" "March" "1998" "23:11:44" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "24" "RE: starship-design: Mining asteroids" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA27313 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 21:12:37 -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 VAA27281 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 21:12:34 -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 XAA18076; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 23:12:28 -0600 Message-Id: <199803190512.XAA18076@hurricane.gnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: <3510160A.349D@olywa.net> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 1055 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Lindberg'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Mining asteroids Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 23:11:44 -0600 Nels, Your rebuttal was cogent and accurate. Unfortunately, most of that profit WAS from communications satellites and other low mass launches as you point out. If you have a weekend to spare you should read the Commercial Space Transportation Study prepared by NASA. Although it takes a somewhat more pessimistic view than I do, it presents LOTS of data to back up its conclusions regarding the likelihood of various commercial uses of space. It basically summarizes to the chicken and the egg quandary - we have to have lots of cheap launch capacity to commercialize space (or do anything in space for that matter), but in order to develop that capacity we need LOTS of payloads, which won't appear until after we have cheap lift capacity.... SpaceDev is one company that is pressing forward anyway. Asteroid mining may be all of those things that you say, but it is also the key to the chicken and egg quandary. I can't speak to the political side that you touched on other than to say that it is already causing a few problems with the FAA. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Mar 20 17:52:26 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["480" "Fri" "20" "March" "1998" "20:51:06" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "15" "starship-design: Re: Dead links @ LIT" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA13045 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 17:52:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA13032 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 17:52:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id TLQQa28013; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 20:51:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 479 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: dgl@nbn.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Dead links @ LIT Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 20:51:06 EST In a message dated 3/20/98 12:48:43 AM, you wrote: > This website is quite interesting, however almost all of the >internal links are dead ends. I notice that the page was last updated in >1996 are you planning to contiue working on this page or is it just >rotting? Glad you liked the site. Sorry about the problems with it. I'm no longer working on the site, and I don't know if their are any plans to update it. I'll forward your comments to the group. Kelly Starks From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Mar 21 13:07:39 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["400" "Sat" "21" "March" "1998" "13:06:42" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "8" "starship-design: a minor queston" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA05868 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 13:07:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA05857 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 13:07:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.163.58.147] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA4583 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 13:09:41 -0800 Message-ID: <3513AD53.363@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id NAA05859 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 399 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: starship-design: a minor queston Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 13:06:42 +0100 Whenever i see references to building colonies at the earth-moon lagrangian points, they always seem to refer to "L5" as opposed to the other stable point L4. is there a reason for this? is one more stable than the other? does one of them offer better asteroid protection (trailing behind the moon, albiet by 60°) are there other advantages? or is this just one of those things... Nels Lindberg From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Mar 21 20:24:50 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1626" "Sat" "21" "March" "1998" "23:23:51" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "33" "starship-design: Re: Thoughts on getting there" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA17548 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 20:24:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA17491 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 20:24:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id 3TGWa02001; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 23:23:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <6f9fd763.35149259@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 1625 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: jledford@gravitynet.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Thoughts on getting there Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 23:23:51 EST In a message dated 3/20/98 11:41:44 PM, you wrote: >I was casually doing some web surfing tonight and ran across your sites on >starship design. Although this is not something I have given nearly as >much thought to as you have, I was reading your stuff and a possibility >struck me that was not mentioned (as far as I can tell). > >One of the problems with the maser system is that it works much better if >an automated ship is sent ahead to construct the maser that will decelerate >future ships. And it is also mentioned that the Lithium-6 method works >much better if the ship accelerates quickly at the beginning, using that >fuel track to speed things along. > >So if the first ship is to be automated (i.e., nothing living on board), >why limit it to a one-g acceleration? Let's make it as many gees as >possible. I haven't done any number-crunching on this at all, but it's a >thought that struck me pretty hard. It wouldn't have to weigh as much as >the manned craft to follow, either. It seems to me that getting the first >ship there would actually be the easier part of this combo. This assumes, >of course, that the benefits of early acceleration are really that great -- >I don't really know this. Like I said, it's just a thought, not >calculation. Glad you liked the site and the ideas in it. The problem isn't accelerating out of our star system, as much as decelerating into the other one. The higher G boost could help with an explorer type ship, but if your using a maser system to decelerate into the target system, why not use it to accelerate out of this system too? Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Mar 22 10:11:31 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["534" "Sun" "22" "March" "1998" "13:10:37" "EST" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "22" "Re: starship-design: a minor queston" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA23124 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 10:11:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.38]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA23112 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 10:11:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id 2ZYGa11672; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 13:10:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id KAA23116 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 533 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lindberg@olywa.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: a minor queston Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 13:10:37 EST In a message dated 3/21/98 3:07:44 PM, lindberg@olywa.net wrote: >Whenever i see references to building colonies at the earth-moon > >lagrangian points, they always seem to refer to "L5" as opposed to the > >other stable point L4. is there a reason for this? is one more stable > >than the other? does one of them offer better asteroid protection > >(trailing behind the moon, albiet by 60°) are there other advantages? > >or is this just one of those things... > >Nels Lindberg Nope its just a habit people got into. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Mar 22 21:17:57 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1979" "Sun" "22" "March" "1998" "21:17:03" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "36" "starship-design: crew" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA23449 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:17:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA23423 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:17:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.163.58.42] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA5276; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:20:15 -0800 Message-ID: <351571BF.6922@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 1978 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD CC: I Subject: starship-design: crew Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:17:03 +0100 I was thinking about crew distribution on a deacdes long interstellar exploratory voyage for which the crew would not hibernate. Medical and mental health services would obviously need to be totally self-contained. Combatting boredom would be a major challenge during the entire voyage except the exploration of the destination starsystem. maintaning excellent health would be imperitive during the entire voyage, especially before arrival. with that in mind, i worked up a crew distribution chart for a hypothetical crew with 1000 crewmen who are science, engineering, command, maintanence, and other "mission related" types. the following are the "auxillary" crew. 8 surgeons, 15 nurses, 3 anesthetists 1 oncologist (cancer may be a greater risk in spaceflight due to radiation, closed air systems, chemical exposure, etc.) 2 internists 2 dentists, 2 dental assistants 1 veterinarian (because of the benefits to morale, phyisical health, and mental health, i favor having pets on board...comments anyone?) 20 psychologists/psychiatrists 5 excercise coaches 4 recreation specialists (this and the two above may be combined) 3 nutritionists/chefs, 3 sous chefs, 15 commies (frequent social dining alternated with meals in quarters will boost morale) 3 barbers, 2 security guards, clergy as necessary. = total 1092 The above list has errors, omissions, excesses, and big flaws. However, it is interesting to note that the "auxillary staff" increased crew size by 9%. Accounting for the positions i forgot may add another few %. Reducing the number of auxillary staff seems a worthwhile activity, but on the other hand, certain positions (such as the doctors and nurses) must be redundant because the cost of losing them is so high. One solution is to have the existing crew train others for their position during the voyage. this has the advantage of increasing redundancy as well as relieving boredom a little. Prehaps other solutions exist as well. Nels Lindberg From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Mar 22 21:26:35 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1993" "Sun" "22" "March" "1998" "21:25:52" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "36" "starship-design: crew" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA25955 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:26:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA25946 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:26:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.163.58.42] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA5258 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:29:03 -0800 Message-ID: <351573CF.4323@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 1992 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: starship-design: crew Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:25:52 +0100 I was thinking about crew distribution on a deacdes long interstellar exploratory voyage for which the crew would not hibernate. Medical and mental health services would obviously need to be totally self-contained. Combatting boredom would be a major challenge during the entire voyage except the exploration of the destination starsystem. maintaning excellent health would be imperitive during the entire voyage, especially before arrival. with that in mind, i worked up a crew distribution chart for a hypothetical crew with 1000 crewmen who are science, engineering, command, maintanence, and other "mission related" types. the following are the "auxillary" crew. 8 surgeons, 15 nurses, 3 anesthetists 1 oncologist (cancer may be a greater risk in spaceflight due to radiation, closed air systems, chemical exposure, etc.) 2 internists 2 dentists, 2 dental assistants 1 veterinarian (because of the benefits to morale, phyisical health, and mental health, i favor having pets on board...comments anyone?) 20 psychologists/psychiatrists 5 excercise coaches 4 recreation specialists (this and the two above may be combined) 3 nutritionists/chefs, 3 sous chefs, 15 commies (frequent social dining alternated with meals in quarters will boost morale) 3 barbers, 2 security guards, clergy as necessary. = total 1092 The above list has errors, omissions, excesses, and big flaws. However, it is interesting to note that the "auxillary staff" increased crew size by 9%. Accounting for the positions i forgot may add another few %. Reducing the number of auxillary staff seems a worthwhile activity, but on the other hand, certain positions (such as the doctors and nurses) must be redundant because the cost of losing them is so high. One solution is to have the existing crew train others for their position during the voyage. this has the advantage of increasing redundancy as well as relieving boredom a little. Prehaps other solutions exist as well. Nels Lindberg